Preamble

The House met at Eleven o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

NEWCASTLE-UPON-TYNE CORPORATION BILL

Read the Third time and passed.

MALTA (FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE)

The Secretary of State for the Colonies (Mr. Alan Lennox-Boyd): I rise to make what is, I am afraid, a rather lengthy statement on Malta.
As the statement made by the Maltese Prime Minister to the Maltese Legislative Assembly on 25th June, of which I have placed a copy in the Library, covers much ground and deals with a number of controversial issues, I consider that I should make a full statement of Her Majesty's Government's position. As it is very long, I am, with permission, circulating it in the OFFICIAL REPORT. The salient points in this statement are as follows.
Her Majesty's Government's attitude has been based all along on the recommendations of the Malta Round Table Conference, particularly paragraphs 58–61 of the Report. I would recall what I said in the debate last March on the specific question of United Kingdom financial aid. I said:
Further, on this financial aspect, we accept the proposals of the Report regarding economic assistance including the need for a clear understanding 'at the start' about the maximum amount of annual assistance by Her Majesty's Government over a number of years. Thus, acceptance of integration would not involve Her Majesty's Government in any obligation to provide financial assistance in excess of the levels envisaged in the Report"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 26th March, 1956; Vol. 550, c. 1799.]
This statement was not challenged at that time by the Maltese Government or by this House.
When, in accordance with the Conference's recommendations, Her Majesty's Government proposed that discussions should take place at the end of May or early in June on the financial arrangements for the next few years, the Maltese Government asked instead that the discussions should be restricted to the amount of assistance required in the current financial year and to the principles to be adopted after integration came about. Her Majesty's Government accepted this proposal but, in the course of subsequent discussions, it became manifest that serious differences of principle existed between the two sides on the whole question of financial aid.
Briefly, the Maltese Government rejected Her Majesty's Government's endorsement of the recommendations in paragraphs 58–61 of the Report and requested that their Budget for 1956–57 should be considered on its merits. Her Majesty's Government took the view that the merits included the revenue side as well as expenditure and pointed out that the Maltese Government proposed very large increases in expenditure on new services, both capital works and social services, which would involve continuing and increasing commitments in future years.
The Maltese Government, on the other hand, resisted all suggestions that they should themselves find new sources of revenue, either by taxation or from loans. Thus, while expenditure was to rise by £4¼ million, or nearly 45 per cent., over last year, Maltese revenue was to rise by only £250,000, or about 3 per cent., over last year. Her Majesty's Government were thus being asked to meet practically the whole of the increased deficit and thus to increase their contributions from £4¼ million last year to over £8 million, or by nearly 90 per cent.
Her Majesty's Government were prepared to consider granting this year total assistance at the level of £4–5 million recommended by the Conference "for the next few years". However, the Maltese Government, having at first maintained that they could not modify their proposals in any way, were at the end of the talks prepared to consider a reduction of less than £500,000 expenditure, with no increase in domestic revenue, leaving Her Majesty's Government's commitment at £7½ million.


Moreover, in the course of my discussion with him, Mr. Mintoff made it clear that his Government were firmly committed to the principle of "economic equivalence" and intended to press for inclusion of this principle in the new Constitution.
The detailed arguments on either side are dealt with in the full statement which I am circulating. There is one point, however, to which I should like to call the attention of the House now. The Maltese Government maintained that any serious modification in their proposals would be unacceptable and that aid at the level of £5 million would result in serious unemployment.
In my talks with the Maltese Prime Minister, I indicated that there was, in my view, considerable room for devising a proper balance between schemes intended primarily to maintain employment and schemes of economic development. I also made it clear to him that, bearing in mind the continuing and increasing burden of new recurrent services and capital works in future years, it was essential for his Government to face up to the obligation which they assumed in the agreed statement of last July, and on which the Round Table Conference laid special emphasis, that the Maltese Government and people should make the best possible contribution from their own resources.
The discussions between the Maltese Prime Minister and myself and subsequently with my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister did not, however, find any common ground, and although conducted in a spirit of good will and mutual consideration on both sides, ended inconclusively.
The Maltese Prime Minister left London on 23rd June. He made a statement in the Maltese Legislative Assembly on 25th June, which attempts to place on this House the obligation of deciding, before the end of this week, to accept a commitment to vote funds for total assistance for this financial year of £7 million. I cannot recommend to this House that it should accede to this demand.
As the House well knows, Her Majesty's Government have warmly supported the recommendations of the Round Table Conference, including the recommendation for representation at

Westminster, and I can assure hon. Members that the Government have spared no effort, since the debate in March, to prepare a plan for the legislation which my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister promised to introduce into this House in due course. I know that Members in all parts of the House would share with me a great sense of regret if this plan could not now be proceeded with.
As a contribution towards resolving the present deadlock, I have proposed to Mr. Mintoff, through the Governor, an arrangement whereby an agreed budget would be drawn up on a basis of 18 months from April last and Her Majesty's Government's contribution thereto would be fixed at £7½ million. At the same time, Her Majesty's Government would appoint an Economic Commission to examine and report upon the issues involved in the light of the recommendations of the Round Table Conference. I hope that, with this proposal in mind, the Maltese Prime Minister and his colleagues will seriously reflect on their position.

Mr. Bevan: Is the £7½ million spread over 18 months?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: Yes.

Mr. Bevan: May I say, on behalf of my colleagues, that in the first place we deplore the fact that this statement has been delayed until this morning? This is not the first time that the right hon. Gentleman plays this sort of trick on the House. There have been three previous occasions when we have been faced with a fait accompli without any opportunity of discussing the implications involved. The right hon. Gentleman was notified earlier this week that we would like a statement on Malta. It is left until Friday morning, with only the weekend intervening, before we can do anything about it.
Secondly, may I call the attention of the right hon. Gentleman to the fact that he grossly misrepresents the Round Table Conference in this respect? The Round Table Conference made no financial recommendations at all. In the paragraphs to which the right hon. Gentleman has referred, the Round Table Conference accepted financial statements made by the Colonial Office. We did not convert them into financial clauses.
If the right hon. Gentleman looks at the latter part of paragraph 59, he will see that we said:
It seems to us to be unlikely that more money could be spent productively in Malta during these years because of the limits set by the skilled labour force available, and the building and constructional capacity of the Islands. The rate of needed assistance towards capital expenditure may possibly increase gradually thereafter …
Our information is that the money made available to Malta for capital construction has been spent more efficiently and more quickly than was expected by the Colonial Office. Therefore, the circumstances have been created in which more money should be provided if unemployment is to be avoided. That is my first point.
My second point to the right hon. Gentleman is this. Is it not a fact that the differences between the Government and the Government of Malta have been narrowed considerably? Is it not a fact that it was possible to make an arrangement for the increased rate of expenditure to go up for about three months, during which further talks could be held? Is it not rather deplorable that the whole of this very promising constitutional advance should be jeopardised for the sake of £1 million a year, which, I am informed, is all that divides the two parties on this matter? Therefore, I ask the right hon. Gentleman once more to reconsider this position, for is it not a fact that the Prime Minister of Malta has decided to ask for a dissolution of of the Maltese Parliament?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I will try to answer the right hon. Gentleman's three points. May I say straight way that the promising experiment is more likely to be jeopardised, not by any action of mine or by Her Majesty's Government, but by the use by the right hon. Gentleman and others of very intemperate language about the proposal which has been put forward? [Interruption.] I listened to the right hon. Gentleman in silence and with courtesy, and it is not unreasonable to ask for the same treatment for me.
In regard to the right hon. Gentleman's question as to why a statement is being made today, this is a matter of very great importance on which there has been a lot of thought and much consultation during the present week. It was not I who said that a decision had to be arrived

at by the end of this week. Very unusual language and procedure was adopted in Malta itself.
I have done my best, quite calmly but clearly, to see whether there was some way out of the difficulty, and I have suggested a way out of it today, but it has, naturally, taken some time to devise a possible compromise. I thought it was worth while delaying until such a proposition was clear and available and then to make the first notification of it to the House.
The second point raised by the right hon. Gentleman concerned what he said was a misrepresentation by me of the thoughts in the minds of the Round Table Conference. It is not for me now to interpret what was in the minds of the members of the Conference at the time, but this I can say. I made it quite clear to the House when commending the proposals to Parliament—and there was no vote upon them—that in my view the Round Table Conference regarded the estimates of £4 to £5 million for financial aid for the next few years as reasonable, which estimates were arrived at both by Her Majesty's Government and by the economic adviser to the Maltese Prime Minister. I said so in the House and it was not challenged at the time, nor was any challenge made by the right hon. Gentleman or by any Front Bench Member speaking for the Socialist Party to what I said.
The third question by the right hon. Gentleman asked whether it would not be possible to agree now to a continuance of aid at the present high rate for the next three months, without prejudice, I imagine, to what would be the total sum for the year. The right hon. Gentleman, I hope, is not so naive as to believe that if in the course of the current year expenditure had continued at a certain level for six months, which, if doubled, would have been £8 million at the end of the year, Her Majesty's Government would at the end of the six months have found themselves committed to the total expenditure of £8 million in the year. It would have been £8 million in this year and more next year, which would have been wholly at variance with the figures I gave to the House and on which the unanimous decision of the House at the time, last March, may well be held to have been arrived at.


[Interruption.] It was a unanimous decision, because it was not challenged.

Mr. Robens: Really.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: It was a unanimous decision on the principles of the Round Table Report. Had I at that time suggested to the House that there was no limit to financial aid that would be forthcoming in the first year or that it was very much in excess of the sum involved, a different situation would have confronted Members of the House and they might have come to a different decision.
I ask hon. Members, who, I realise, have had a long statement read to them—and there is an even longer one setting out the position which will appear in the OFFICIAL REPORT—to reflect on these statements before they rush to hasty conclusions, for the statement does, I think, represent something which, if considered calmly and clearly, may well get us out of what is otherwise, I recognise, a difficult position.

Mr. Clement Davies: There will be universal regret if this plan breaks down. I am quite sure that the desire of everyone is that the plan should be carried through to the satisfaction of all. The right hon. Gentleman places far too much emphasis upon a general statement. He cannot expect that it can be regarded as being a factual statement from which there can be no deviation.
With regard to the Economic Commission, does the right hon. Gentleman have in mind the number and kind of people concerned and how soon it can act? That apparently is the new offer which has been made. What does it really convey to the Maltese Government? We ought to have a little more information about this.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I share the hope of the right hon. and learned Gentleman that nothing which is happening now or may shortly happen, or may happen at any time in the future, will jeopardise this experiment to which I also pledge my personal support and the support of the Government. The proposal is that there should be £7½ million for the next year and a half, which would enable the Maltese Government to rephase their expenditure and the expenditure to which they feel themselves committed over a

longer period, if they had that absolute certainty. In addition to that, there would be a commission, which could be of a single commissioner or of a number of people, whom I would appoint, and whom I would take steps to appoint straight away, to re-examine the position in line with the Round Table Conference Report and the views expressed by the Government at the time of the debate on that Report, to examine both aid to Malta and the revenue side as well. I think that is a reasonable proposition, which, I trust, will not be jeopardised by any rather hasty language in this House.

Sir R. Robinson: Is not the best way to find the solution to this problem to have a calm and quiet discussion? In which case, would it not help if the Prime Minister of Malta were to withdraw the ultimatum about a date-line, so that there may be further discussion between all parties?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: That certainly would be a major contribution.

Mr. J. Griffiths: Will the right hon. Gentleman recall, as I am sure my colleagues of the Round Table Conference recall, that the Round Table Conference itself did not enter into very great detail about amounts of financial aid, for the reason given in the Appendix G? Already, before we began our task, the Government, through the Secretary of State, had entered into certain commitments with the Maltese people to serve three purposes, as stated in the Appendix—
(i) Raising the standard of education and other social services; (ii) increasing substantially opportunities for employment outside Service establishments; (iii) avoiding unemployment.
The position of Malta at present is that in the first three months of this current financial year, April to June, a tentative agreement was arrived at between the Government and the Maltese Government by which expenditure has been running at an annual rate of about £5½ million. If the proposal of the right hon. Gentleman put forward earlier, which he proposes now, is to govern the annual rate, it means that the Maltese Government during the nine months remaining of this financial year will have to make such cuts as will bring about unemployment in Malta. The Maltese Government will be compelled to make large cuts which will bring about unemployment.


Would it not be very much better in this situation if the Maltese Government were allowed to continue at the present rate of expenditure during the next three months to allow time for full consideration?
The House will realise that, having agreed upon this proposal for the first year to put the Maltese Government in a position in which they have to put people out of work is to create an entirely wrong atmosphere in which to begin this new policy. I ask the Government to consider this. There is no doubt whatever that we shall have a dissolution and an election—about what? Not about integration; about something else. I ask the Government to realise the importance of this and to resolve to prevent creating a situation in Malta which we shall all of us regret in a few months' time. I have postponed putting this question before in the hope that a settlement would he arrived at. We are left now with the least amount of time, for tomorrow there may be a crisis. If there should be, it will be a very bad day for this House and for our relations with the people of the Colony, who stood by us in our difficulties. To allow that for the sake of these few pounds is unworthy of the Government and the House.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I cannot accept, and I am sure that very few people on this side of the House and, possibly, on the other side of the House can possibly accept, the view the right hon. Gentleman has put forward as representing what happened. In so far as the right hon. Gentleman put to me a specific question, I will answer it. It is true that an agreement was arrived at for aid for three months, but the fact that it was agreed for three months is now being used as an argument that aid at the same rate must continue for the remainder of the year. It is now suggested that we should say the same rate should continue for six months, without prejudice, but if the argument after three months is used that we are to continue for the next nine, I cannot see how, if it were granted, the argument could not also be used with even greater force that we should continue it for the next six. Nor can I accept that this would necessarily involve unemployment in Malta. I have considerable authority for saying that there is room for rephasing this programme over

18 months in a way which will not necessarily bring about unemployment.
It seems to me very important that, whether this is or is not an important year from the internal political point of view in Malta, the people of Malta must in this year, as in any other, face up to certain facts of life, and I am not prepared to lend myself to a situation in which those facts would be kept from them perhaps for political purposes. I think the proposal I have made is a fair one, and it is certainly not inconsistent with the policy of integration, to which I myself am also publicly committed.

Mr. Nicholson: It would be a very great pity if a situation of such far-reaching significance becomes a matter of partisan controversy. Is my right hon. Friend aware that, in spite of many misgivings on the part of many of us, this House and this country, nemine contradicente, loyally accept integration and intend and hope and trust it will be carried out? Will he exert himself to the uttermost to see that misunderstanding, through impetuosity or impatience, or, perhaps, lack of experience on the other side, does not prevent the implementation of this great constitutional and Imperial advance. Will he send out from this House today a message that he as well as all this House and this country devoutly hope that this constitutional problem may be satisfactorily resolved?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I share in my hon. Friend's hope that nothing happens this year or in the future to bring about any unfortunate consequences of the kind my hon. Friend has in mind. It is not the Government who have issued an ultimatum. If one was issued, it was issued by the Prime Minister of Malta. I have tried calmly and quietly and fairly to put the facts before the House. Further facts will be published in the OFFICIAL REPORT, which I believe, when they are considered, on reflection will remove any misgivings by fair-minded people here or elsewhere.

Mr. Crossman: Will the right hon. Gentleman think of the effects of his remarks about the Round Table Conference? I think the right hon. Gentleman will agree that the Round Table Conference created very good relations between ourselves and Malta. Does he


not think it is a bit unfair to try to shuffle off on to the Round Table Conference a completely unilateral decision of his own? How can he pretend that the Colonial Office decision to make an absolute ceiling of £5 million is a recommendation of the Round Table Conference? Does he not realise that he is doing great damage to the relations of this House with Malta, and that he misrepresents what the Round Table Conference was doing? The right hon. Gentleman talks about an ultimatum, but is it not a fact that the sharp reaction of the Prime Minister was to an ultimatum from himself in which he said, "£5 million and no more"? Is it not possible to adopt a more reasonable attitude such as the Round Table Conference seriously advocated?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I do not think the hon. Member has made any point I have not already covered. I made it quite clear at the time, without any dissent from any point, how we read the Report of the Round Table Conference.

Mr. Crossman: Misread it.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I said emphatically that acceptance of integration would not involve the Government in any obligation to provide financial assistance in excess of the levels envisaged in the Report. Last year £4½ million was given by the United Kingdom to Malta. This year under my proposals it would have been £5 million. So there would have been a substantial increase. I see no reason to modify the statement I made to the House.

Mr. Gaitskell: Mr. Gaitskell rose——

Mr. Speaker: Before I call on the right hon. Gentleman, may I remind the House that, in view of the importance of this subject, I have allowed this discussion to go on rather longer than I would feel right in other circumstances, but I hope that the House will not indulge in an irregular debate, because there is no Question before the House. I hope that we can pass to other business.

Mr. Gaitskell: I appreciate what you have said, Sir, but I wish to ask the Colonial Secretary, first, whether he is aware that we on these benches, and I think many other people, simply cannot accept his account of the point of view

of the Round Table Conference in this matter of aid? Is the hon. Gentleman further aware that, with few exceptions, all of us in the House are deeply concerned lest the integration proposals should fall through, and that we are seriously worried about what the consequences in Malta would be were that to happen?
Would the right hon. Gentleman agree also that in fact the difference between Her Majesty's Government and the Government of Malta at the moment is between £5 million and £7 million, and that Her Majesty's Government have been quite unwilling to move at all from their figure whereas the Prime Minister of Malta has been willing to negotiate so far as his demands, or requests, are concerned? Would the right hon. Gentleman not be prepared now to say that he is, on behalf of Her Majesty's Government, prepared to negotiate about this very small difference in order to try to reach a settlement with the Prime Minister of Malta?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: In courtesy to the right hon. Gentleman's position, I will naturally answer that, but it again raises the points which I have raised before. I would share with him very great distress if the integration proposals, with the imaginative approach which they recommend, should come to shipwreck, and I am anxious to see that they do not. It is not a question that can be simplified to a mere matter of £1 million or so. The proposed provision for this year would inevitably involve larger sums for the next two or three years, and cannot be separated from the question of the principle of equivalence or otherwise which would apply in the integration period and thereafter. I have made what should be regarded as a generous approach in this matter. I hope that the Maltese Prime Minister will make a similar one, because the basis of the financial arrangements arrived at last June was that both parties would try to help in this financial field.

Mr. J. Griffiths: The Secretary of State has given an interpretation of the Round Table Conference Report which I, as a member, do not accept. I believe that there are other members who do not accept it. If the Round Table Conference Report is to be misinterpreted—and I speak as a member of the Conference—


we ought to be recalled, because we do not think that our Report should be misused in this way.

Following is the statement:

UNITED KINGDOM FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE TO MALTA

As I stated in my reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Essex, South-East (Mr. Braine) on 20th July, 1955, Her Majesty's Government having examined with the Maltese Government their estimates of revenue and expenditure for the year ended 31st March, 1956, recognised that it would not be possible for the Maltese Government to provide from their own resources the budgetary services that were agreed to be necessary. Her Majesty's Government therefore undertook, subject to the approval of Parliament, to provide funds to the Governments of Malta in respect of that financial year on the basis of an agreed budget. The contribution took the form of a grant of the sum which proved necessary to maintain the balance in the Consolidated Revenue Fund of Malta at a figure of £1 million at the 31st March, 1956, subject to a maximum grant of £2 million.

2. On the basis of accounts produced by the Maltese Government last month, provision will accordingly be made for a contribution of £1,974,232. This amount is additional to the funds already being provided in respect of war damage and reconstruction, the net cost of the services of the Maltese Imperial Government and grants under the Colonial Development and Welfare Act. The total financial assistance provided or to be provided by Parliament for the year 1955–56 will thus be £4,257,538.

3. As hon. Members are aware, some general considerations concerning the economic development of Malta and the implications in terms of United Kingdom financial aid were examined by the Malta Round Table Conference, whose Report was presented to Parliament in December last year. The Conference heard evidence on these questions from the Maltese Government Delegation and its Economic Advisers and from my right hon. Friend the Financial Secretary to the Treasury and myself. On the subject of United Kingdom aid, the Conference stated (paragraphs 59 and 60 of their Report, Cmd. 9657):
59. Her Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom is this year providing between £4 and £5 millions towards Malta's capital and current needs. In the agreed statement on economic policy issued at the end of the June talks (see Appendix G) Her Majesty's Government undertook to continue financial aid over the next few years; first, to promote new capital development and, secondly, to assist, as may prove necessary, towards balancing the budget and improving social services. Although the amount of this aid has not yet been determined, we understand that a continuation of aid at about present levels for the next few years if not considered by Her Majesty's Government to be unreasonable. It seems to us to he unlikely that more money could be spent productively in Malta during these years because of the limits set by the skilled

labour force available, and the building and constructional capacity of the Islands. The rate of needed assistance towards capital expenditure may possibly increase gradually thereafter; but a decision on requests for assistance towards recurrent expenses will have to depend on the success which is achieved in promoting productive development in Malta and hence in increasing local taxable capacity. It is important that care should be taken that increases in social expenditure do not run ahead of Malta's ability to support it, in the longer term, from her own resources. The new schemes referred to in Appendix E will throw a burden on Maltese resources and, therefore, will have to be introduced gradually.
60. Assistance from the United Kingdom Treasury will necessarily be subject to control by the Parliament at Westminster. The form of that control is a matter which should be settled between the two Governments. There should be, at the outset, a clear understanding about the maximum amount of assistance which could be given annually by the United Kingdom Exchequer over a period of years. This would assist the Maltese Government in drawing up its annual budget and would reduce the possibilities of friction in the annual examination of Malta's requests for assistance towards meeting recurrent costs.

4. The Report of the Conference was not debated in this House until 26th March. Before that date it was necessary to reach some understanding with the Maltese Government about the budgetary arrangements for the current financial year. In discussions held in the Colonial Office during March, interim arrangements were agreed for the continuation of recurrent expenditure to maintain existing services at existing levels for the first three months of the new financial year, for the introduction of the National Insurance scheme, and for the initiation of certain capital works during the same period. My advisers explained that agreement to this interim provision for capital expenditure did not commit Her Majesty's Government to accepting that expenditure on the agreed capital works should be continued at the same rate during the rest of the current financial year. My advisers also explained to the Maltese Prime Minister, whom they understood to agree, that in order that further discussions of the whole year's budget and of financial arrangements for subsequent years, proposed for late May or early June, might proceed on a proper and informed basis, it would be necessary for me to be furnished with the draft Maltese five-year development plan one month in advance of the discussions and with the Maltese Government's draft estimates for 1956–57 at least a week or ten days in advance.

5. The Report of the Malta Round Table Conference was debated on the 26th March. In the course of my opening speech on that occasion, I said further, on this financial aspect, we accept the proposals in the Report regarding economic assistance, including the need for a clear understanding at the start about the maximum amount of annual assistance by Her Majesty's Government over a


number of years. Thus acceptance of integration would not involve Her Majesty's Government in any obligation to provide financial assistance to Malta in excess of the levels envisaged in the Report. This statement was not challenged during the debate nor at the time by the Maltese Government.

6. On 5th May, 1956, I addressed a despatch to the Governor of Malta on the subject of the financial arrangements for the year 1956–57 and subsequent years. This despatch drew attention to the recommendations of the Report and to my statement, of which I have just reminded the House. It stated that I hoped to be able to inform the Governor very shortly, in advance of the proposed talks, of the level of assistance beyond which Her Majesty's Government would not find it possible to go in the light of the recommendations of the Round Table Conference and the United Kingdom's current financial position. As the Maltese Prime Minister himself has said, the Maltese Government reacted violently to this despatch. The Maltese Government preferred to deal with the arrangements for 1956–57 separately from, and independently of, the considerations which should govern assistance for the first few years after the new Constitution came into force. At the same time, they made it clear that the proposals for the current year would include, under both ordinary and capital expenditure, new services which involved recurrent commitments in future years. Moreover, they reiterated their attachment to the principle of "economic equivalence" on which Her Majesty's Government had already entered reservations at the time when the Maltese Government's referendum proposals were under discussion and again in the debate on the 26th March.

7. Although Mr. Mintoff had meanwhile committed himself publicly, in a speech to the G.W.U. Congress on the 13th May when Sir Vincent Tewson and other distinguished trade union officials from overseas were the guests of that union, not to accept integration unless it was agreed to include economic equivalence in the Constitution and had talked about "integration not being the only solution for Malta." Her Majesty's Government fell in with the suggestion that the financial arrangements for 1956–57 should be discussed on an ad hoc basis. Pending discussions between the Maltese Prime Minister and myself later in the month on the budget for the whole year, a Maltese Government delegation therefore began discussions in London on 6th June with the object of securing Her Majesty's Government's concurrence in financial provision for a further two months, which would include some of the proposed new services. In support of their proposals, the delegation produced a skeleton outline of their five-year plan, the full details of which were apparently not yet available for consideration by Her Majesty's Government. It soon became clear that the rate of expenditure envisaged in the proposed provision for a further two months would, if extended over the whole year, result in total expenditure involving financial assistance from Her Majesty's Government far in excess of what was contemplated in the Report

of the Malta Round Table Conference and in the despatch to which I have already referred.

8. It was not possible to reach agreement on any of these matters and at that point the Maltese Prime Minister came to London, on my invitation. Before coming, he asked for an assurance that the budget would be discussed on its merits, that is, without any prior conditions. I made it clear to him that I was ready to discuss the budget with him on that basis, but that in Her Majesty's Government's view the merits of the budget inevitably included the estimates of revenue as well as those of expenditure.

9. In this connection, I should make it clear that the budget for the full year envisaged a total expenditure of £13,516,727. The proposed expenditure on the ordinary budget was £9,443,000, which included certain new services and involved a total increase of £1,727,000 as compared with the actual expenditure under corresponding heads last year. The total estimated expenditure on the capital budget was £4,495,000, which represented an increase of £2,495,000, as compared with actual expenditure in 1955–56. Thus expenditure was to be increased by nearly £4¼ million; no new taxation or new source of revenue was proposed and the total revenue estimate, at £7,796,000, showed a net increase of only £¼ million over last year.

10. The Maltese Government's proposals would thus have involved a commitment on Her Majesty's Government to increase their financial assistance from £4,250,000 for last year to over £8 million for this year without any increase, either by way of raising additional revenue or public loans, in the efforts of the Maltese Government and people towards meeting the cost of the services which the Maltese Government wished to carry out.

11. In the course of further discussions, I was obliged to draw the attention of the Maltese Government to the disparity between this proposed level of assistance and that envisaged in the Report of the Round Table Conference and previously accepted by Her Majesty's Government. I was bound to point out that their proposals envisaged an increase in the deficit on the ordinary budget, as well as a large increase in the deficit on the capital budget. Both of these increases would involve continuing and increasing commitments in future years, since although the Maltese Government were proposing that the estimates for this year should be dealt with on an ad hoc basis, the services included would have to be carried on in future years. The Maltese Prime Minister frankly acknowledged that the total assistance required from Her Majesty's Government would probably rise even further in the next two to three years, although it might diminish thereafter. I was, moreover, bound to criticise the Maltese Government's proposals as envisaging the starting up of too many new capital development schemes all at once and to draw their attention to the fact that certain items of expenditure were more suitable for financing by means of public loans than from grant-in-aid, both from the economic point of view and in order that the Maltese Government should face up to the obligation they assumed in the agreed statement of last July and on which the Conference laid special


emphasis. This was that the Maltese Government and people should make the best possible contribution from their own resources. I did my best to convince the Maltese Prime Minister that, subject to a further examination of the budget, it should be possible to reach agreement on a level of assistance within the figures envisaged in the Report which would he sufficient to maintain employment and to carry out a certain measure of priority development.

12. The Maltese Prime Minister maintained throughout our talks that he could not accept the offer of assistance on the basis I had proposed and that it was impossible for him to rephase or cut any of his proposed expenditure, except in respect of certain proposals to the extent of about £500,000. Mr. Mintoff argued his case very skilfully, but I regret I cannot accept his contention that his arguments, particularly on the question of increasing the local contribution to revenue, were conclusive or that I was at any time convinced by them.

13. Despite further conversations between the Maltese Prime Minister and myself and with my Rt. Hon. Friend, the Prime Minister, on 22nd June, it was not possible for the Maltese Government to accept the views put forward by Her Majesty's Government. The Maltese delegation returned to Malta on the 23rd June. Before his departure, It was made clear to the Maltese Prime Minister that it was hoped that the situation would be dealt with in a moderate and calm manner. It was therefore with great regret that I noted that he had, without further consultation with Her Majesty's Government, introduced a Bill in the Maltese Legislative Assembly involving expenditure for three months which, if concurred in by Her Majesty's Government, would involve them in a contribution for the whole year of £7 million. I have placed in the Library a copy of Mr. Mintoff's speech, from which it is apparent that this figure of £7 million has been arrived at by rephasing some of the proposed development expenditure, although a new sum of £500,000 is included for contingencies, among which are listed wage and salary increases in Malta, a subject on which the Report of the Conference had also in paragraph 57 urged caution and restraint.

14. The Maltese Prime Minister has indicated that Her Majesty's Government must accept or reject the implications of this action by the end of this week. This means, of course, that the Maltese Legislative Assembly is confronting this House with a decision which would commit this House, without prior agreement, to providing a total sum of financial assistance for the current year, and by implication in subsequent years, very considerably in excess of the levels envisaged in the Report of the Conference and accepted by Her Majesty's Government when the Report was debated last March. Despite Her Majesty's Government's willingness to accept unconditionally the recommendations of the Report of the Round Table Conference and to introduce into this House and pass through all its stages a Bill giving effect to a most notable innovation in our Constitution, namely representation of Malta in this House, I cannot in all the circumstances recommend that this House should submit to this demand.

BRITISH FORCES, GERMANY (SUPPORT COSTS)

The Minister of Defence (Sir Walter Monckton): I will, with permission, make a statement about the contribution to be made by the German Federal Government in the current financial year towards the cost of British forces in Germany.
After prolonged and difficult negotiations in Bonn the Federal Government have undertaken to provide for 1956–57 support to the value of DM.400 million—about £34 million—for our forces in Germany.
This amount falls short by some £30 million of our local costs in Germany: it also falls short of the amount of £50 million included in the 1956–57 Service Estimates. This was the annual rate of support prevailing immediately prior to 6th May, 1956, under the Finance Convention associated with the end of the occupation régime.
In all the circumstances Her Majesty's Government has felt it necessary to accept this offer.

Mr. Gaitskell: Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware that his statement will be received with very great regret in all parts of the House? Is he further aware that it only shows how extremely badly the previous agreement was negotiated so that it left so open the question of what occupation costs should be paid by Germany? May I also ask whether there have been any discussions about the method of payment? Is it not the case that, in view of the difference between the £50 million allowed for in the Service Estimates and the £34 million, we shall probably have to pay the balance in gold under the E.P.U. agreement? Has there been any discussion with the German Government on that point? Can the right hon. and learned Gentleman give any information about what the arrangements are likely to be for the future?

Sir W. Monckton: If I may answer the last point first, this arrangement which is being made for this year does, as I am advised, discharge the legal obligation under the Finance Convention. But when the Notes which are being exchanged this morning are published, which they


will be early next week, it will be seen that the right to negotiate for the future on merits is kept open. I cannot say for the moment, of course, what results that will have.
As to the method of payment, it is perfectly true that a large proportion of what has to be made up now will have to be paid in gold, and that, of course, has been one of the matters which have been under discussion, but I do not think that I can alter that. As to the negotiation of the original agreement, I do not think that I can usefully return to it.

Lieut.-Commander Maydon: My right hon. and learned Friend has not made in his statement any reference to the supply of arms to the Federal Government. Could he amplify his statement in that respect?

Sir W. Monckton: There has been a discussion, simultaneously with these discussions on support costs, with the Federal Government about the possibility of meeting certain of their armament requirements from the United Kingdom. Her Majesty's Government have reason to believe that, as a result, substantial orders will be placed in the United Kingdom.

Mr. C. Davies: The right hon. and learned Gentleman has been very cryptic in the last sentence of his statement, which was
… in all the circumstances Her Majesty's Government have felt it necessary to accept this offer
Could the right hon. and learned Gentleman not be more specific and tell us exactly what the circumstances are?

Sir W. Monckton: The reason why I used those cryptic words, if cryptic they were, is that it is well-known that we felt it right to press for the larger figure. We felt that figure to be justified, particularly in view of the relative sizes of the United Kingdom and German defence burdens in 1956–57, but in the end we accepted the settlement in the interests of European solidarity.

Viscount Hinchingbrooke: Is it not deplorable that the British bargaining position has been found so weak, and does this not call in question the whole spirit of the Western European Union agreements? Is it not a question now

whether we can afford to keep four of our best divisions in Germany?

Mr. Speaker: These are large questions. I hope that hon. Members will confine their questions to the statement.

Mr. H. Wilson: Is it not a fact that the American Government pressed for £54 million and got it, and that the French Government pressed for £22 million and got £23 million, as stated in the Press this morning? Is it not also a fact that this £16 million shortfall on the Chancellor's estimate, on which his whole Budget is based, just about wipes out the whole of his real savings announced on Tuesday, when account is taken of the running down of stocks and subsidies?

Sir W. Monckton: It is true that there were separate negotiations by each of the main stationing Powers, although there were, of course, consultations between them. I cannot make a statement about the actual levels of support that will be received by other Powers, but we have good reason to believe that the amount paid to us will give us broadly the same proportion of the total support paid by the Federal Government as previously.
On the question of the effect on the £100 million, I would only point out that the plan of the Government in respect of the £100 million was to cut by that amount expenditure on services provided for in the Estimates as published. What we have sought to do is to bring about some economies, and I think that £6 million has been achieved already in Germany. We shall go on doing that.

Mr. Smithers: Should not this achievement be seen against the background of the Paris Treaty and the difficult and dangerous situation which preceded it? Also, is it not a fortunate fact that the history of these negotiations has resulted in Germany being not a potential enemy but an ally and friend of this country?

Mr. Hale: Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman further aware that the Conservatives were saying the same thing in 1934, when they were members of the Anglo-German Fellowship, and that although we seek collaboration with the


German people and their restoration to the comity of Europe, this kind of action does not help friendship? Is it not a fact that originally this House had the impression conveyed to it that in the first year, at least, the whole burden would be borne by Germany, that later it was reduced to £100 million, that the Chancellor himself made a provision of £50 million in the current Budget, that we were told a week ago that there had been an offer of £35 million and that now it has gone down to £34 million? Why is that? And does the obligation still remain to maintain 80,000 British troops in Germany to defend France whilst French troops are being deployed in Algeria?

Sir W. Monckton: On the first part of the question, it is true that £50 million was the estimated figure which represented the average over the last months of the previous year. We thought that £50 million was right, and we pressed for it. I cannot go back further into the history of 1934 to deal with that. There was another point?

Mr. Hale: The other point was about the obligation given by the Prime Minister individually to maintain 80,000 troops on the Continent in Germany to help France, who has her army abroad. How long does that continue in existence?

Sir W. Monckton: That is a much wider question. I only want to say, about that, that the level of N.A.T.O.

forces would be a matter for consideration in N.A.T.O. itself. It would not be appropriate for me to make a statement about that now.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: Is it not quite clear now that the whole business of financing the rearmament of Germany has become an absolute futility, and that the time has come to cut our losses and bring our people home? Does not the Minister see the irony of the fact that last year the Germans exported more motor cars than we did, and that now the people who will be thrown out of work in the motor car industry will have to help, by taxes, to finance the rearmament of Germany?

Sir W. Monckton: I think that the hon. Gentleman is trying to get me back into a position which I no longer occupy.

Mr. Robens: I should like to ask the Minister of Defence, in view of his statement that by various methods he has already reduced the cost by about £6 million, whether he could tell the House if it is his intention to reduce the Services in Germany to the state at which the contribution from the Germans would meet the costs of the British Government?

Sir W. Monckton: I cannot say that at the present moment. I am trying to pursue all the economies I can, but I cannot say what the result will be.

Orders of the Day — BRITISH CARIBBEAN FEDERATION BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

11.44 a.m.

The Minister of State for Colonial Affairs (Mr. John Hare): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Colonies deeply regrets that it is not possible for him to be here this morning to introduce this Bill, but he has been called to attend the Commonwealth Prime Ministers' Conference today. As the House knows, my right hon. Friend has played a great personal part in the final stages of federation, and it would obviously have given him the greatest possible pleasure if he could have been here to submit a Measure which I hope the House will agree to allow to become the almost final milestone on the march to Caribbean federation, a cause to which he has devoted so much of his energy and leadership. On his behalf it is my pleasant task to introduce the Bill, representing as it does a Measure which at various times has been approved by all parties. My hope and belief is that it will be welcomed by everyone today.
The Bill is preceded by a fairly lengthy history, of which I may perhaps briefly remind the House. The Federation of the West Indies first received serious consideration as a result of the dispatch in March, 1945, to West Indian Governors of the then Secretary of State, Colonel Oliver Stanley, whom all of us who knew him remember with effectionate admiration and respect. That dispatch advocated the aim of federation, but emphasised that it was something for the West Indies themselves to decide.
Federation was first properly discussed in the West Indies at the Conference on the Closer Association of the British West Indian Colonies which was held at Montego Bay in Jamaica in 1947, under the chairmanship of the right hon. Member for Wakefield (Mr. Creech Jones), who was then Secretary of State for the Colonies. I am particularly glad today to see the right hon. Gentleman in his place, as it gives me the pleasant task of acknowledging the real debt which the

achievement of federation will owe to his work and to his wise and enthusiastic guidance.
The Conference at Montego Bay agreed to set up the Standing Closer Association Committee, which sat in 1948 and 1949 and consisted of West Indian representatives, many of whom are still concerned with federation issues today, under the chairmanship of Sir Hubert Rance, who has been another of the pioneers in this matter. The Report of that Committee, published in 1950, provided not only the basis for a federal constitution but placed on record its
… considered and emphatic view that Federation, and only Federation, affords a reasonable prospect of achieving economic stability, and through it, that political independence which is our constant object.
After West Indian Legislatures had considered that Report, their delegates to the London Conference of 1953 agreed on the plan for a British Caribbean Federation which was subsequently adopted in principle by all the Legislatures concerned. One of the most controversial points outstanding, that of the movement of persons within the federal region, was considered by a conference in Trinidad last year under the chairmanship of my noble Friend the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies. That conference succeeded in working out the basis on which the Governments should be able to control this movement, and also unanimously adopted, amongst others, a resolution asking the British Government speedily to complete the preliminary measures to enable federation to be established.
As the House will remember, during 1955 three commissions were set up to examine the fiscal, civil service and judicial aspects of Federation. On the publication of their Reports, which were tabled in this House, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State summoned a further conference in London in February this year, at which final decisions were reached on all major outstanding points except the site of the capital and the establishment of a customs union. On both these points the conference decided that further information was needed, and recommended the setting up of two commissions for that purpose.
The Commission on the Capital is already at work, and will submit a report for the decision of the Standing


Federation Committee set up by the conference to settle remaining matters connected with establishing the Federation. The Commission on Trade and Tariffs, which is to examine the possibilities of introducing a customs union, if necessary by stages, will start work this autumn, and is to report within two years of the establishment of the Federal Government.
It is true to say, therefore, that the stage is well set for the introduction of the enabling legislation which I am now asking the House to consider. In this connection I should like to quote the final sentence of the Report of the 1956 conference:
It is the unanimous agreement of those of us who have had the honour to represent the British Caribbean Colonies on this historic occasion that our countries should be bound together in Federation, and we solemnly declare our earnest wish that the Secretary of State may seek leave to introduce a Bill accordingly.
I think that shows how warmly federation is desired by the West Indies themselves. I have already, on a previous occasion, paid tribute to the statesmanship of the West Indian leaders who came to that conference in February this year, and I certainly do so again.
The territories which expressed a wish to federate are those named in the Schedule to the Bill—Barbados; Jamaica; the Leeward Islands of Antigua Montserrat and St. Christopher-Nevis-Anguilla; Trinidad and Tobago; and the Windward Islands of Dominica, Grenada, St. Lucia and St. Vincent. So far as the remaining territories in the Caribbean are concerned, I ought to mention that the Bahamas Legislature decided at an early stage that it did not wish to participate in further discussions about federation. British Guiana and British Honduras have at present decided not to join the Federation, but they have maintained their contacts with federal developments by sending observers to both the 1953 and the 1956 conferences.
It is proposed that the federal constitution shall provide for the entry into the Federation of other British territories in the region, and the 1956 conference expressed the wish that it should be made particularly easy for British Guiana and British Honduras to do so.
As for the British Virgin Islands, the conference noted that they had expressed a wish not to be incorporated in the Federation, but it recommended that

those islands, as well as British Guiana and British Honduras, should be enabled to participate in the various regional co-ordinating and advisory services which will be carried out by the Federal Government, and provision will have to be made for appeals from all these territories to be heard by the Federal Supreme Court.
The Federation is to be on the Australian pattern, with residual powers reserved to the Governments of the member-Colonies. The Federal Government will not at the outset have wide powers, but they will be fully sufficient to allow that Government to establish themselves and to develop, given the will to do it.
It is proposed that the Federation should have a Governor-General, who will preside over a Council of State which will be the principal instrument of policy. That Council is to consist of 11 members appointed by the Governor-General, including a Prime Minister, seven members of the Legislature nominated by the Prime Minister, and three members of the Federal Senate appointed by the Governor-General on the recommendation of the Prime Minister. There is to be a Federal Legislature consisting of a Senate of 19 members appointed by the Governor-General in consultation with the Governors of the member-Colonies, and a House of Representatives of 45 members elected directly in the member-Colonies.
A Federal Supreme Court is to be constituted a court of appeal from the Supreme Courts of the units and from the Supreme Courts of such other territories as may be decided.
The Federation will, to begin with, obtain its revenue from the interest on the securities which back the currency issue and also from a mandatory levy on the unit Governments. The Federal Government will have power to reduce or abolish the mandatory levy and, as an alternative, to raise revenue by means of excise and customs duties subject to certain restrictions.
I now come to the Bill itself. Its object is to permit the federal constitution to be embodied in an Order of Her Majesty in Council and to enable the Federation to be set up. It may assist the House if, briefly, I draw attention to the contents of the Bill. Clause 1 empowers Her Majesty to provide, by


Order in Council, for a Federation of the Colonies mentioned in the Schedule to the Bill, and for the accession to the Federation of other Colonies. It includes provision for the establishment of a Federal Government, a Federal Legislature, a Federal Supreme Court and such other federal authorities as may be necessary.
An Order in Council for the purpose of establishing the Federation is required by Clause 1 (4) to be laid in draft before Parliament for an affirmative Resolution in each House. Such an Order in Council would be amendable only by a further Order in Council or by Act of Parliament.
Clause 2 of the Bill provides for conferring upon the Federal Supreme Court jurisdiction to hear and determine appeals from the courts of British Guiana, the Virgin Islands and other Colonies not included in the Federation, and to dissolve the West Indian Court of Appeal, whose functions, of course, it will now take over.
Clause 3 deals with financial arrangements between Her Majesty's Government and the Federal Government. At the London conference in 1953 Her Majesty's Government promised to make a grant of £500,000 to assist in establishing a federal headquarters; the cost of that Headquarters at that time was estimated to be about £520,000, but unfortunately, after further and much more detailed examination, the cost of this federal capital is now estimated to be £l¾ million. At the conference of February of this year my right hon. Friend announced, after consulting with his right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, that Her Majesty's Government would seek approval for a grant for this purpose not exceeding £1 million, and that provision is found in Clause 3.
For many years a number of the territories which will be entering the Federation have been unable to balance their budgets from their own resources, and grants for that purpose have been made by Her Majesty's Government. I think that the House would like to know that the total of the sums provided for this purpose in the current colonial services Estimates is £566,000. I naturally hope that the Federation will in due time be able to become self-sufficient, but it is clearly impossible that the mere act of

federating should produce an immediate answer to the financial problems of its members. Therefore, provision is made in Clause 3 (b) for budgetary aid to the Federation for the first ten years.
It would be unrealistic to try to assess now what the level of this assistance should be. The intention is that six months or so before the actual establishment of the Federation, there should be discussions here with the Financial Secretarys of the Federal and unit Governments to fix the amounts of assistance for the first five years. All I can say now—and it was stated at the conference in February—is that Her Majesty's Government's assistance for each of the first five years will not be less than the average of the deficits incurred by the grant-aided territories in their ordinary budgets during the three years immediately preceding Federation.

Mr. Charles Royle: Will the right hon. Gentleman give some idea of what that is?

Mr. Hare: I have given the figure for the current year. It is £566,000. I assume that it will be in that region.
I should like to say a few words about the form which it is the intention that Her Majesty's assistance should take after Federation. As the House will appreciaate, grants have hitherto been made out of annual Votes of Parliament to the individual territories in proved need of aid. Her Majesty's Government's grants will, in future, be made to the Federal Government, who will then be responsible for aiding the budgets of the unit Governments as their need is shown. The grants of Her Majesty's Government, however, will be made on the clear understanding that the money is made available for that purpose only. Any unused balances not actually required for that purpose which remain in the hands of the Federal Government at the end of the first five years will be carried forward and taken into account in determining the level of Her Majesty's Government's financial assistance in the second five-year period.
I hope that the House will agree that these provisions, which I think should be regarded as generous in present circumstances, will help to build up a good financial basis for the Federation to make a successful start.

Mr. Arthur Creech Jones: I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will forgive me for interrupting, but will he say whether those grants will include the grants and loans which are made under the Colonial Development and Welfare Act?

Mr. Hare: No, those grants will not include that. That will continue to be done independently.
In conclusion, I should like to invite the House to give friendly consideration and, I hope, a warm welcome to this Bill, and to approve its terms. It is the culmination of a process of discussion and examination spread over the whole period since the Second World War, and I believe that it represents the sincere and deeply felt wishes of the peoples and the Legislatures concerned. It is also, I think, an expression of the good will of the people of this country.
Although the Bill will not bring with it immediately the status of full membership of the Commonwealth, it is an essential start in preparing the West Indian territories for that goal. In considering the details of the Bill and what still has to be achieved in the West Indies thereafter, we must not lose sight of that great goal which is rightly the aim of the West Indies and which we all wish to see them achieve. I therefore confidently commend the Bill to the House as a Measure which will, I believe, leave its undoubted mark on history.

12 noon.

Mr. Arthur Creech Jones: The whole House will welcome the Bill, the result of very long discussion, a discussion which most of us have watched with considerable sympathy in the hope that a federation might be finally established. Perhaps it is fitting that we should be considering the Bill this week when there are gathered in London the Prime Ministers from the Commonwealth, because we hope that as a result of this legislation we shall very soon find another Prime Minister who will be summoned to subsequent conferences so that the West Indies may play its full part in full membership of the life of the Commonwealth.
As I have said, all sides of the House welcome the Bill. Federation is nearing its final stage, but a great deal of work is still to be settled and a number of

important decisions still to be taken. We extend our very sincere congratulations to all the leaders in the West Indies as well as our own officials who have brought federation to this point. I refer to the generous help in the West Indies of Norman Manley, Grantley Adams, Mr. Gomes and even Bustamante in the early days, and likewise the officials who have been generous in their help, Sir Hubert Rance, Sir George Seel and Sir Stephen Luke, and a number of other officials who have served on or been chairmen of Commissions and brought things to the present position.
The Minister of State has very graciously referred to the part which I was privileged to play at Montego Bay, and I thank him sincerely for the recognition of that extraordinarily pleasant and happy job when I was Secretary of State. Ever since 1947, we have followed with very great interest and sympathy the wrestling with this frightfully difficult problem of a formation of a federation. It is a federation which has been built up from below. It is not a constitutional conception which has been imposed on the West Indies, and it therefore has the value that what is now coming to fruitition is largely the result of discussion and the desire of the West Indian people themselves.
It is a constitutional form frightfully difficult to shape, but nonetheless one to which the West Indian people brought their own experience, background, knowledge and life to bear in the discussions, so one hopes that this is the form of constitution which is best able to meet their wishes. Although the analogy with the Australian Federation has been mentioned, in some respects this is a unique conception. There was comparatively little to guide the negotiators, the conferences and the officials in the shaping of the constitution.
These territories are very wide apart. They are not contiguous, long distances separate them, each is different from the other, they have their separate economies, their different race problems and communications are very poor. Therefore, to shape a constitution likely to work under conditions such as those, was a problem of very great difficulty. When we discussed the Federation in its early days, it was obvious to most of us that it would be difficult for small territories in the West Indies to maintain full and


complete independence in all aspects of Government, unless some closer association could be formed.
Also, if we were to achieve a sound standard of living and social services and be able to meet their economic requirements, a degree of pooling of resources, which the Federation will help to bring, was necessary. There had already been some degree of common action among many of the territories. As we well know, over the last few decades encouragement has been given to the calling of conferences for the discussion of common problems, economic issues, labour questions, trading and commercial problems, education questions, research and development, agricultural difficulties and so on.
Steadily over the years the territories have been brought together in conferences. The process was helped by the institution of the West Indian University College, which also brought together people and students from the various territories now to form the Federation. Following on the report of the West Indies Royal Commission, which, although the Commission began its work before the war, was not in our hands until the war was well on, there was established in 1940 the office of Comptroller of Development and Welfare, Sir Frank Stockdale, who, with his council of advisers, was of enormous importance in bringing the peoples of the West Indies into closer contact.
The scheme is now launched, and it is of great interest to note that when it was launched it was perfectly clear that the respective territories would not be asked to sacrifice any of their individual constitutional development, and that it was the desire of the British Government that the territories should proceed to full democracy. While these discussions have been proceeding over the years, it has been of great interest to note that the constitutions of the respective territories, Trinidad, the Leeward Islands, Jamaica and others, have been made more representative and more responsible and the individual territories have gone forward to the realisation of greater democracy than when the discussions originally began.
When I summoned the conference at Montego Bay in March, 1947, I stated

in the circular I dispatched to the territories that the object of federation was full internal self-government within the British Commonwealth, and that if it were to function aright the Federation or association must have the requisite financial stability. In face of great difficulty, the territories have agreed that certain functions and powers can be fittingly transferred, or can devolve, to the federal authority when it is set up. It is interesting to see what are the exclusive and concurrent subjects set out in the proposal for federation.
As we look ahead, we must be conscious that great problems and difficulties remain to be overcome if the Federation is to function as effectively as most of us would wish. There is still the difficulty of communications, and the very considerable distances which separate the respective territories. Moreover, let us not disguise the fact that, within the respective territories, there has been a growth of, for want of a better term, local spirit or nationalism. In view of that situation, it is a singular fact that we should now find territories such as Jamaica and Trinidad, which have been moving towards a full measure of self-government, quite prepared to surrender some of their functions to an authority which may be a considerable distance away. It may be that that local spirit will grow still further and make difficulties for the Federation a little later on. Whatever the financial arrangements may be, there is also the possibility that certain heavy burdens may fall upon one or two of the more developed and better-off territories. That may also create some difficulties.
I confess that I was somewhat sorry when, a short time ago, the Secretary of State was obliged to ask the House to agree to the disintegration of the Leeward Islands as a Colony and the establishment of separate presidencies, in direct touch with the Federal Government. One had hoped that the Leewards and the Wind-wards could have looked at their problems as a whole, as separate groups, and be represented as separate groups in the Federation, but the Leewards thought otherwise, and the British Government, anxious to meet their needs, endorsed the view which they expressed. The separate islands of the Leewards therefore come in as independent units in the Federation.
The Federation may not always find that it has at hand, in its administrative and technical services, or amongst its legislature, a sufficient number of people of the quality which it would demand. The working of the Federation, with this kind of dualism, will involve stretching the available personnel over the respective Colonies as well as making them available to the Federation itself. After the first five years a further difficulty may arise over the question whether the Ministers might function both in their individual territories and in the Federation, if that were thought desirable. I was a little alarmed when it was suggested that the outstanding political leaders in the West Indies would be obliged to confine themselves to their unit territories, and that when they became Federal Ministers they would have to forgo their responsibilities in their individual territories. I hope that that kind of difficulty can he avoided in the future.
There was another point which caused a little trouble at the last conference. It was suggested that Ministers in the Federal Cabinet should have civil servants, with the full status of Ministers, sitting with them. I am very glad that in the discussions which took place with the Secretary of State the position of the civil servants was properly defined and that, while they will be present at Cabinet meetings, they will not enjoy the status of Cabinet Ministers.
I do not want to cover the ground which the Minister of State has so ably covered. The details of the Constitution have been settled by the peoples concerned, with the endorsement of Her Majesty's Government, and the matter should be allowed to rest there. But I should like the Minister to answer a few questions. Once the Federation comes into operation, what will be the relation of the individual territories to the Secretary of State? Will he relinquish all responsibility and authority, and will that responsibility and authority then rest in the Government of the Federation? It would help if we could learn a little more of the way in which the Constitution will function. I take it that Her Majesty's Government will be responsible for the appointment of the Governor-General. What, then, will be the relation of the Governor-General to the governors of the individual units, and what reserve powers will in future be allowed to the

governors? Will any reserve power rest in the Governor-General?
As I have said, a great deal of work still has to be done. We are grateful for the work of the Fiscal Commission, the Civil Service Commission, and those bodies who have been working upon the problems of customs, taxation and finance, and I would only hope, on behalf of my hon. and right hon. Friends, that the Federation will achieve the objectives which those who pioneered it had in mind.
Most of these territories have had a very chequered existence for 300 or 400 years, having come through periods of turmoil and great difficulty. Many of their people were slaves. They have been caught up in the European tradition: they have become part of western civilisation, with a mostly western religion and culture, and have come fully into the democratic tradition as we in Western Europe understand it. It is because this affords a tremendous opportunity now, not only for the enjoyment of full local autonomy in the respective territories but also for sharing in the larger life of the world, through the British Commonwealth, that we welcome this enabling Bill to establish the Federation.
I hope that the Government will look sympathetically at the financial problems of the West Indies. We are all conscious that the economic resources of the territories are limited. We are aware, also, that social services will have to be stretched very much if they are to meet the normal social needs of the population of these islands. There is no doubt that development and social progress can result only in so far as our approach to their problems is generous and we are prepared to help to the utmost degree in developing their economic life and building up the social services.
I am very glad that the grants in aid are not to be withdrawn. I am pleased, too, that for some time at any rate money will be available under the Colonial Development and Welfare Acts. Of course, £1 million becomes available for the initiation of the Federation, and that is very helpful. It is because of the acute economic problems of the West Indies that one hopes that in the days ahead, although independence is established and a new independent nation is


created, Britain will continue to help in as generous a way as possible.
Finally, I express the hope that before long the Federation may be on a wider basis and that British Guiana and British Honduras will consider the desirability and advisability of joining. We welcome this enabling Measure. We congratulate all concerned on bringing Federation to the present point and we look forward with great hope to the creation of a new independent nation inside the British Commonwealth.

12.22 p.m.

Sir David Gammans: I imagine that all of us who are here today feel that we are present on an historic occasion. I always find it exhilarating when this House passes a Measure to create a new dominion under the British Crown but, in addition to that, we are in truth present today at the birth of a new nation. I am very glad that it has fallen to the lot of my right hon. Friend the Minister of State for Colonial Affairs, who has been so keen on this project ever since he held his present office, to put the cornerstone on an arch which so many Secretaries of State of the parties on both sides of the House have assisted to build.
I am glad that my right hon. Friend mentioned the name of Oliver Stanley. It was his Measure, in 1944–45, granting adult suffrage to the West Indies, which was the first stage in this process. Those of us who knew and respected him realise how much he would have liked to have been here today to have seen the last stone placed in that arch.
Perhaps the Bill is the best vindication that we could have of British colonial policy. I often think that our friends throughout the world, especially those in the United States, do not fully understand our aims and our policy, and do not realise the extent to which our whole idea for many years has been to stimulate self-government in the Colonial Empire and to push it forward at a breakneck speed—in fact, at a speed which many people think holds dangers within it. We have certainly not be laggard in promoting this Federation. I go so far as to say that the initiative in promoting it has been here rather than in the West Indies. We have always been pressing

the people of the West Indies to consider it when, at times, they were perhaps falling behind in their appreciation of its advantages.
I hope that the two territories which now remain out, British Guiana and British Honduras, and which, after all, are more hesitating than refusing, will realise before long the enormous advantages which will come to them and to the whole Federation if they consent to join. Those of us who have been to the West Indies realise that unless there had been some sort of Federation there would have been very little hope, in the long run, for the continued existence of those territories in their present form. We must remember that we are dealing with territories which from a population point of view are very small; there are only 3 million people there.
The territories are surrounded by two giant civilisations, the United States and Latin America which, sooner or later, would have absorbed them, in the sort of world that exists today. I believe that the British Caribbean Colonies have a distinctive contribution to make to the world. For three hundred years they have been associated with us. Their culture, their way of life, their institutions and their general outlook has been distinctively modelled on this country. It has not been modelled on the United States or on Latin America. It would have been a tragedy of the first order if this comparatively small group of countries had disappeared because they would not federate. That is why this Federation gives to all of us in this House a very distinct satisfaction. We can see the enormous potentialities for good which can come from it.
There are also distinct economic advantages. Some islands are richer than others, and it is only by a pooling of resources that the general standard of living can be raised and the secondary industries developed. They will be in an immeasurably stronger position to negotiate trade agreements if they are prepared to federate. We have had two examples of that already. Although these territories have not, in point of fact, federated up to now, they have acted together in their negotiations with us on sugar and on citrus crops. Perhaps it was that experience which helped them to realise the virtues of a greater federation on the political level.
It is for the West Indians themselves to work out in detail the relation of one territory to another. We ought not to underestimate their difficulties. These territories are widely separated. For example, Jamaica is as far from Trinidad as we are from Gibraltar. To a large extent their economies are complementary. There is not that amount of inter-colonial trade which one would like to see. We cannot help that; climate has brought that about, but that is one of the reasons why it has always been difficult to have a shipping line in the West Indies on a satisfactory basis. Perhaps the greatest contribution to a sense of unity has been the creation of West Indian Airways, which has brought the territories into close contact with each other.
There is one general point about the growth of self-government in the Colonial Empire which concerns us all. It is that we are not merely exporting the idea of self-government to the Colonies; we are doing a far more difficult thing than that. We are, to a large extent, exporting the British Constitution as well. We have all sorts of assumptions about our development of self-government. We assume that the sort of Constitution which has been evolved over hundreds of years in this country will more or less suit automatically very divergent parts of the world with different histories and often with a plural society and with fundamental problems of toleration which are unsolved.
What we understand by the British Constitution is, first, a very rigid division between Executive and judiciary. Another thing we always assume is an educated electorate, a literate electorate, which can look beyond the confines of its own broad problems and see its place in the world as a whole. We have always assumed a Civil Service completely free from politics, and a highly-trained Civil Service at that. Lastly, we have always tended to assume that these local self-governing Dominions which we create will evolve a two-party system.
What we have yet to discover in our evolution of self-government is to what extent those conditions will be paralleled overseas. From what I know of the West Indies, I am very optimistic about it. I think that to a large extent, perhaps because of their long association with us, they are evolving on identical lines. The

last election in Jamaica showed that there was an understanding of the two-party system, where one party displaces another at a general election. But I think that sometimes we tend to underestimate the danger of failure, or the alternative to a failure, of this system of ours, this conception of government which we have evolved so successfully.
The alternative cannot be a return to some colonial form of government. The alternative would be chaos and, ultimately, some form of dictatorship. We see the way in which democracy has disappeared from a large part of the world for that very reason, because there is far less democracy in the world today than existed even when most of us were born. Democracy has completely disappeared in places like South and Central America and in large parts of Eastern Europe, etc. Therefore, the alternative to failure is something very tragic. We should consider that point sometimes when we are wondering at what pace we ought to force self-government on the Colonial Territories.
I do not have that same danger in mind when thinking about the West Indies. They have many enormous advantages. For one thing, they have not the sticky problem of minorities. Of course, there are minorities, the Chinese, East Indian, British and Spanish minorities. But to a large extent those minorities are, to a far greater degree than in most other parts of the world, prepared to think of themselves, not as of, say, African or Spanish origin, but as West Indians in the true sense of the word.
I regard the Bill not merely as a passport to political freedom, but as a sort of Magna Carta of a great new West Indian nation under the British Crown which will be as much a pride to us in this country as to the people of the West Indies who have succeeded in creating it.

12.35 p.m.

Mr. James Johnson: The Minister has asked for a warm welcome for this Bill, which, of course, it has received. In the past, we have often talked about the invisible bonds of Empire, but I think this will make indivisible the bond between the West Indies and the mother country. No one can criticise this Bill. I am sure that we on these benches would have done exactly the same had we been in office.


We are one in this matter of wishing well to this young West Indian society.
This is merely an enabling Bill so that an Order in Council will create the federal constitution later, which will be a job for the West Indian people. It is not for us to tell them what kind of constitution they want. They have able statesmen and experienced men like Norman Manley, Mr. Gomes and Mr. Grantley Adams, who can work well together and look after their own affairs in their own house in that beautiful Caribbean climate; and so we say good luck to them.
As I see it, the Bill will create a Federal Supreme Court, and the other provisions of the Bill upon which I wish to comment are financial. The Minister said that we should continue to find moneys for their needs at the moment, and indeed for their future needs; that C.D. and W. would go on, besides the grants in aid to the non-viable territories of this new Federation. But is that good enough? I am not happy about the financial provisions for so many of these overseas territories.
I have spent a little time this week conducting public relations officers from different Colonial Territories over this House. I found that the two things which concern them most are the difference between the two main parties in this House, and how they differ in their attitude to the Colonial Territories and their behaviour towards their peoples. Talking to people such as these public relations officers, who are experienced and public-spirited men, and also to visiting delegations such as the Uganda delegation, I found that what concerns them is this matter of financial aid and investment; the schemes necessary and the money that must be spent to enable these people, in the next 10 or 20 years, to have the social services they want and must have if they are to create and maintain dignified and self-respecting society.
Where is the money to come from? Places like Malaya and West Africa have done a wonderful job, and mainly due to them I understand that in London we have had something over £1,200 million in colonial balances. But I consider that in the last six years we have not invested more than £100 million per annum in all our colonial dependencies. It is all very

well to talk about C.D. and W. and give £20,000 here or £120,000 there. The important thing is to develop these economic societies so that they may look forward with confidence to a fuller and better existence.
It was hardly a good thing to usher in this young and hopeful Federation in the West Indies by the sort of debate we had a few days ago upon Trinidad Oil. I am not casting stones, but I am shocked when I consider that we are in such a position as a Commonwealth that he have to sell such assets in the way we did there. If we in the United Kingdom cannot provide the money to invest overseas, what other nations will move into these young undeveloped lands? What is there to stop America, for example, from moving in. And there is Latin America where, in places like Venezuala, because of the boom in oil, there is surplus money which could be invested in these undeveloped areas. It may sound ludicrous to some, but what is, for instance, to stop the Soviet Union from investing in the Copper Belt of Northern Rhodesia in the Central African Federation?
And so I wish to impress on the Minister of State the vital necessity of financial aid; and more than the actual day-by-day stopping of the leaks and plugging the holes with C.D. and W. and grants-in-aid. Even more important is planned investment in these new overseas territories. We had an unhappy experience, only an hour and a half ago over Malta, and it would be a great pity if, for the sake of £1 million investment here or £10 million investment there, we were to have some misunderstanding with these new partners in the Commonwealth. They are nations in the West Indies and elsewhere which, in a few years' time, will be entitled to send their No. 1 statesman to sit side by side with the statesmen of the wealthy Dominions like Australia, New Zealand and Canada.
Having administered that somewhat harsh caveat, may I say that I agree with the hon. Member for Hornsey (Sir D. Gammans) in what he said about the West Indian society. Here we have all colours, all religions, all ethnic stocks mixed higgledy-piggledy with some minorities—not many, but some—including some Chinese, some Anglo-Saxons and some Indians. Yet, on the whole,


they are living together as a multi-racial society in a way which is a model for other parts of the Commonwealth.
We have less happy examples in Africa and elsewhere, but the peoples in the Caribbean are making an effort to live up to the things which we talk about so much—partnership, amity, concord and harmony, and the belief that every man, whatever the colour of his skin, is at least as good as any one of us and can, potentially, live as good a life as anyone of us.
We do welcome this enabling Bill. I say again that the party opposite are doing merely what we should have done in their place and that we on this side of the House therefore wish the Bill good luck and wish the best of political lives for the leaders of Federation to come in the West Indies.

12.41 p.m.

Sir Roland Robinson: Eleven years ago, when the late Oliver Stanley talked about closer association in the West Indies, he gave to many people in the Colonies and here an ideal which today we are helping to turn into a reality. To take up the point made by the hon. Member for Rugby (Mr. J. Johnson), I think it is true that the Bill is warmly welcomed on both sides of the House and had the party opposite been the Government in power, it would have liked to have taken the same action as we ourselves are taking today.
The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Wakefield (Mr. Creech Jones) picked on a point which I feel is outstanding in this Bill. It is this. This Bill is not a solution imposed on British Colonies by the will of this House, but rather one which has been sought by them of their own free will after a good many years of discussion, and thought; they have asked for this Federation because they also believe that it will be in their own interests. It is a solution made with a great deal of knowledge behind it.
I feel that the Federation would have been a better one if it had had in its membership British Guiana and British Honduras as well, because I believe that both of those Colonies could be of great value to the Federation. On the other hand, I feel that it would also be to the advantage of British Guiana and British Honduras if they themselves could come in; but I think it right that we did not put pressure on them to join the Federa-

tion at this stage. Like other Colonies of the West Indies, if this is to be a success, they should come in of their own free will. It is my hope that in time they will do so, because I believe that they will see the advantages that are to be gained from the Federation, more especially when they see the development of West Indian culture, backed up by a university, and see, as foreshadowed in this Bill, a common appeals court, which should provide a better system of justice than has been known in the area before.
I do not think that the job is finished merely because we are passing an enabling Bill in this House and that there is an Order in Council to follow. In order to make a success of the Federation, a tremendous amount of hard work will have to be done in the Colonies themselves. I am sure that the people there will take advantage of the Federation and face up to their problems in a great spirit of reality. I hope that, while they are doing that, Her Majesty's Government will give them every possible assistance.
There is the tremendous problem of transportation. I do not suppose that we have ever before tried to federate communities divided by such tremendous distances. I think that we ought to be prepared to help to develop transportation, perhaps above all the air transportation in the British West Indies. One of the greatest drawbacks of the use of air transportation there is the cost. I think that it would help if we could bring much cheaper air transport there.
Other problems have been referred to, including that of finance. I think that it is right that we should today recognise that we shall have a financial responsibility to the British Caribbean Federation. I suppose that in Government as in life the situation is similar. I think that many of us have found that when our sons and daughters are growing into maturity they need more help than they have had before, until finally they are able to take on responsibility themselves.
I should like to take this opportunity of urging on the Minister of State the necessity of doing all that we can to foster the trade of the British West Indies. We desire this new Federation to stand on its own feet. To enable it to do so, we should help it to build up its economic strength. We should also, as we have been trying to do in the last few years,


help the industries of sugar, rum, citrus and bananas. We should also do more to help the tobacco and cigar industry there. In addition, we now have the Government's undertaking to back up the provisions of the pioneer industries legislation of the West Indies. We can help in one way or another.
The constitutional development is first-class, but I feel that it is not enough and that we must do all we can to see that these people are able to earn their own daily bread. By our action today, we are helping to create a new West Indian citizenship. I hope that they will be as proud to be West Indians as we are to be British; that they will still have their local pride; that a Jamaican will be as proud of being a Jamaican as I am of being an Englishman; that a Barbadian will continue to be as proud of being a Barbadian as I am of being a Lancastrian, and that someone from Trinidad will be as proud of coming from there as Scottish hon. Members are of coming from Scotland. I believe that there will come, above all, an abiding loyalty to the West Indies.
I should also like to pay my tribute to the successive Secretaries of State, from the time of the late Mr. Oliver Stanley to that of the right hon Gentleman the Member for Wakefield and others on his side of the House who have occupied this Office down to the Secretary of State today, who has played a real part in bringing about this Federation. In our hearts, we should pay a very warm tribute to the patience, perseverance and foresight of all leaders of political opinion in the West Indies who have made this Federation possible.
I welcome the Bill with a very warm heart. I believe that it foreshadows the creation of a new Dominion of proven loyalty, which will eventually take its place among the self-governing countries of the British Commonwealth. When that time comes, I think that it may well prove to be a light which can shine as a great example to the other nations of the free world.

12.50 p.m.

Mr. Charles Royle: So often in the House an hon. Member rises and apologises to the hon. Member who preceded him for the fact that he does not intend to follow the points he dealt

with in his remarks. This morning the situation is entirely opposite; I feel that I have to apologise to the House for the fact that, in the main, I shall follow the points made by everybody who has spoken so far. That is inevitable in the circumstances. This morning we are all wishing success to the Bill and are looking forward to the Federation of the British Caribbean. I will join with all others who have expressed appreciation and thanks to every Secretary of State who in the past has done great work towards this great ideal.
I go on at once to express deep regret, as other hon. and right hon. Members have expressed it, that the two mainland territories do not propose at the moment to join the Federation. Since it was my privilege to go to one of those mainland territories, I have always felt that there was a serious risk of British Guiana and British Honduras being absorbed into Central America. Only last week I received a letter from British Honduras on which the address was, "British Honduras, Central America".
It is a matter of deep concern that that should be so. I should be quite prepared to sink my pride in the British Commonwealth if I felt that absorption into Central America was for the ultimate good of those two Colonies, but I am completely convinced that it is not for their good, and I am equally convinced that it would be for their good and the good of the other Colonies in the Caribbean for them to be part and parcel of the Federation.
The prospects of development in those two territories would be considerably brighter if they were part and parcel of the Federation. The other Colonies need them, too. Jamaica and Barbados, particularly, are over-populated, and I have always believed that the two mainland territories could take great numbers of the people who are needed for the development of those territories. The difficulty always is, which comes first, the additional population into those two territories or a prepared development which would welcome that new population? There is, of course, only one answer—investment and capital expenditure. That is the only way in which the problem of those two territories will be solved.
In spite of the regret which we must express about British Honduras and British Guiana, I believe that nothing but good will stem from this Bill for Jamaica, Trinidad, the Windward Islands and the Leeward Islands. In a similar way, we express regret that apparenty it is not possible at the moment to make honest women of certain Virgins, but they may very quickly see the light in that respect and enter the Federation.
I believe that if security and happiness are to be attained, even in federation—and this is where I follow my hon. Friend the Member for Rugby (Mr. J. Johnson) very closely—very much needs to be done. The Colonial Development Corporation and the colonial development and welfare fund have only touched the fringe of the economic and social problems of those Colonies, and one asks where the capital is to come from.
In opening the debate in such a felicitious manner the Minister of State for Colonial Affairs talked about the £500,000. That is not enough. The sum of just over £500,000 which he mentioned is only the gap in the present financial set-up of those Colonies, and something much more than that is needed. That gap must be closed and large amounts of money have to be poured into the territories for development.
There is some wealth in the islands, although unfortunately at the moment it is in too few hands. I feel that the wealth already in the islands can be used to a much greater degree for development there. Next comes the share of the United Kingdom Government, and I hope that our ideas on this subject will be much wider than those which have been expressed today.
Is it also possible, for example, that the Texas Oil Company will be prepared to put into, as well as to take out of, that part of the world? Will it be prepared to continue the good work which is going on at the moment at the hands of the present company—the work of greatly improving the social conditions of the people of Trinidad?
Behind the luxury and beauty of these glorious islands, behind the wonder of Montego Bay—closely behind—lies terrible squalor. Within sight of the foothills of the Blue Mountains are the shanty towns outside Kingston. Those problems have to be tackled, and it is a tremendous

task. Education must be made more universal.
At the moment the word "housing" is a misnomer. Three years ago four hon. Members went out there as a delegation from the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association—the hon. Member for Bodmin (Mr. D. Marshall), the hon. Member for Reigate (Mr. Vaughan-Morgan), my hon. Friend the Member for Durham (Mr. Grey) and myself. That was quite a mixed bunch. In the Report which we gave to the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association when we returned is this paragraph:
Other social services have been examined, and whilst trying to maintain a sense of proportion the Delegation feel that they must express deep concern at the living conditions of many of the local population. Thousands of houses are little more than cover; dirt and squalor abound; and the miracle is that the colonies are as free from disease as they are, particularly as standards of health and housing are very low. Efforts in housing are being made and workers' houses are being built at fairly low cost. Credit must be given to industrial companies as well as to governments for this effort. The Delegates are nevertheless disturbed at the conditions which exist and would welcome an alleviation.
I know that some progress has been made and I believe that under federation the progress will be faster than it has been under the Colonies separately. I do not want to paint a lurid picture of the islands and the conditions which exist, but it would be wrong if this debate were to conclude without attention being drawn to the conditions which exist and to the colossal task which the new Federation will have to undertake.
That is the worse side of the picture. On the other side is the glorious opportunity everywhere of a prosperous agriculture and the prospects of an expanding industry. I repeat: investment, investment, investment and capital expenditure are the answer to the problem. Hon. Members have referred to transport. Intercommunications between the islands and communications with the United Kingdom are terribly bad. B.O.A.C. is doing a very good job, but how many of the local population can afford air fares to travel from one of the Colonies to another? It is certain that sea transport must be improved. Is it a good idea to think that at some time, perhaps in the near future, the new Federal Government will


try to nationalise the system of communications between the islands?
A colossal task awaits the people who will govern this Federation. I believe that in each of those Colonies are men of wisdom, understanding and ability, and I believe that, with that wisdom and ability, they will make a success of the Federation. One of my, I would almost say, prayers is that I shall live long enough to see not only federation but to see the British West Indies with full Dominion status; and I join with everyone else who has spoken this morning in wishing the Bill and federation Godspeed.

1.1 p.m.

Mr. Ronald Russell: We have had a series of masterly brief speeches today, beginning with that of my right hon. Friend the Minister of State; there have, I think, been some six speeches, each given within an average of 12 minutes. I shall, I hope, reduce that average by a considerable amount. My main reason for taking part in the debate today is this. Almost exactly a year ago today a number of us, who are now in our places, were setting out on a Parliamentary delegation to this very delightful part of the world, where we spent a most enjoyable, fascinating and instructive month.
I welcome this Bill, as I know that my hon. Friends and all hon. Members of the House do, and I believe that if any territory or series of territories in the British Commonwealth not yet having self-government is ripe for it, it is the British West Indies. One reason why I say that has not yet been mentioned today. Some of the Colonies of the West Indies have three centuries of British tradition and British rule behind them. Barbados became British in 1625. I think; Jamaica became British in 1655, its tercentenary celebrations last year being one of the reasons why a Parliamentary delegation was invited to go out there. I think I am right in saying that no territory in the proposed Federation joined the Commonwealth later than 1814, at which time Singapore, for example, was still a swamp. It is quite clear that if any part of the world is justified in being awarded self-government, and, indeed, self-determination or independence within the Commonwealth,

it is the territories of the British Caribbean.
My only hope is, as was said also by the hon. Member for Salford, West (Mr. Royle), that the two mainland territories of British Guiana and British Honduras will eventually join as well. We are absolutely right not to try to force them, but I hope that the example and, possibly, the success of the Federation of the Colonies at present envisaged, when it is set up and has been going for a time, will persuade them to come in. I believe that the two mainland territories and the Islands are complementary. The mainland territories have enough room, if they are willing and if investment can be provided, to absorb much of the surplus population of the island territories. That is a solution which I hope will eventually be followed.
My hon. Friend the Member for Hornsey (Sir D. Gammans) mentioned the success which the territories have already had in matters of trade, in coming to an agreement about sugar and about citrus fruits. They have also succeeded—I think they are about the only territories to have done so—in driving a wedge into G.A.T.T. They did bring about the waiver agreement which was reached last year under which the preferences on lime oil and bananas have been allowed to increase, almost the only case where that has happened, except in some of our own horticulture duties over here.
I hope that something similar will be possible for cigars or any other tobacco which the West Indies choose to grow. I know the cigar problem is a difficult one; it is bound up with Cuba, and the question of any advantage derived from our admitting Havana cigars in greater quantities than we took in the early years after the war. I hope a solution of this may be that in the West Indies, instead of growing cigar tobacco, they may possibly grow cigarette or pipe tobacco, or something which will not compete with Havana but which we do need over here and would welcome as a relief from having to spend so many dollars, as we do, on tobacco. I hope that that side of West Indies trade can be developed.
I will conclude by emphasising that I regard it as our duty, as the mother country, to provide markets for the product of the Colonial Territories as much as we possibly can, especially since,


in some cases, we have given them to understand that they ought to diversify their economy. We did this particularly in the case of the West Indies, urging that they should try to diversify their agriculture and not be dependent so much upon sugar. If we do that, then there is, I think, a moral obligation on our part to do our utmost to help them. One of the ways to do that, apart from investment, which has been mentioned, is to provide the markets for their produce, without which they cannot succeed.

1.6 p.m.

Mr. Harold Davies: I naturally also welcome the Bill. I apologise for not hearing the opening speeches on account of other Parliamentary work. I have been interested in the debate so far. I shall not occupy the time of the House very long, but I will say at once that some hon. Members may accuse me of throwing a sledge-hammer into the debate rather than a feather duster. While we all welcome this Bill most sincerely and look to the time when self-government will come, it is no use crying out "Investment, investment" as a panacea for any of these problems in backward areas.
I sincerely believe that not enough study has been given to the problem of economic aid and investment. I would offer the comparative example of the E.C.A.F.E. area, the work of the Economic Commission for Asia and the Far East, and compare that with the West Indies. We have there a tragic example; since the end of the war, in the entire economic region of the Far East, despite millions of £s of military aid and millions of £s of economic aid, food production is 14 per cent. per capita less than it was in 1934–38. Despite all this economic aid in South-East Asia and the backward areas, despite all the efforts to uplift their standard of life, while last year the white world had a 6 per cent. share of the world's exports, South-East Asia dropped back by 21 per cent. Comparatively, the Caribbean area is dropping back also.
If investment alone is not enough, what is the answer? Professor MacMahon Ball illustrated this point in his famous book, "The Economics of Nationalism and Communism in East Asia." He said that stability of prices in backward areas, especially in South-

East Asia, would be worth five Colombo Plans.
That is why we welcome the fact that the West Indies has been able to reach some market agreements, for example in sugar and bananas, their raw materials. This House must watch this matter very closely. There is no panacea, no ready method for uplifting the human soul, in federation. We must realise that economic aid alone is no guarantee of an increase in social justice. We have a problem here which must receive close study. Do not think that I am pompous enough to pretend that I know—or that the Minister knows—all the answers; but I believe that a close study of the matter must be made.

Mr. James Griffiths: Would my hon. Friend forgive me? He has introduced a very important point. It is essential for all these areas that there should be for their produce stability of prices and security of markets. Would my hon. Friend not agree with me that in the Caribbean the greatest security they have had in our lifetime came from the bulk-buying arrangements for their sugar? Is not that the way in which we must ensure their security?

Mr. Davies: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend who, when in office, was an excellent Minister. I do not want the House to think that either of us is trying to make a party point. This is an honest effort to arrive at a conclusion. Without making any cheap party point, I believe that the bulk-buying methods that we as the Labour Government introduced gave greater stability, for in that transition period—we are told nowadays of our own economic plateau—these countries had a plateau of security.
Therefore, I beg hon. Members and others who are interested in the economic and financial problem to consider the method of investment. I have seen this myself in South-East Asia and in Malaya. While huge hydro-electricity concerns afford magnificent capital investment for the future, what would happen in the West Indies would be that labour was drawn away from production, thus reducing the quantity of consumer goods. Therefore, while capital investment continues, if we are not to have inflation consumer goods must move in.
We owe it to the Caribbean Federation to make a real study of the problem.


It is no use moaning that the British Commonwealth does not have sufficient investment capital. There is plenty of virility in the British Commonwealth of Nations and in this country. Far from having a premium bond scheme to win a thousand pounds or so, why not have a national system of investment by means of which the ordinary man with a small income could raise a grand national pool for investment overseas? The hon. Member for Somerset, North (Mr. Leather) smiles at the idea. It may be original, but the man in the street would feel that he was taking a constructive interest in the British Commonwealth and it would give him an opportunity for investment in it. We can find the investment and we should consider these methods.
We should study the problem of capital investment and without using party political language we should consider seriously whether for backward areas such as these a system of bulk buying during the transitional period might not be the answer to stability of prices. Do not let the debate descend to the basis of cheap general election arguments. Stability of prices could only be given by us by a certain amount of bulk buying. Let neither side of the House, therefore, be doctrinaire about this. We want to up-lift the backward people.
It should always be remembered that economic investment or an increase in national income is not bound to increase national dignity. Furnival gives the example of Burma between 1870 and 1940. The national income of Burma increased many times but the standard of life of the peasant fell by 20 per cent. Western investment in backward areas is always to the point of production. Whether in railways, dams or hydro-electric schemes, it is magnificent to the point of production to win the raw material for Western man. Somehow we must change the pattern and co-operate universally.
That is why I hope that ultimately Western and Oriental man will be civilised enough to use the United Nations Organisation as a real international investment factor. Unless we do this, all these schemes of federation in backward areas, in Asia, in the Far East or in the region of the Atlantic Ocean, will be like

the man who goes to his wedding with a wedding suit on his back but with death in his heart. This movement cannot live unless we can get a real plan for stability of prices and for primary production in these parts of the world.

1.15 p.m.

Mr. E. H. C. Leather: I am sure that the hon. Member for Leek (Mr. Harold Davies) will forgive me if I do not follow him in his excursions into the East Indies. I would only say, particularly in view of the interjection by the right hon. Member for Llanelly (Mr. J. Griffiths), that he will find that many people in the West Indies would say that the greatest thing ever to have happened to them was the Commonwealth Sugar Agreement but that one would never hear anybody there use the phrase "bulk buying". The advantage of the Commonwealth Sugar Agreement, which was negotiated by my right hon. and gallant Friend who is now Home Secretary, is that it achieved stability both of prices and of quantity without the clumsy and extravagant procedure of Government bulk purchase.
While dealing with economics, perhaps I may say a word on the speeches of the hon. Member for Salford, West (Mr. Royle) and the hon. Member for Rugby (Mr. J. Johnson) about grants and aid. There certainly is no Member of the House with his heart more firmly set in the West Indies than myself, and there is nobody who welcomes the Bill with greater enthusiasm. I think, however, that we are inclined to get very emotional when talking about the slums, the shanty towns and the great need for money. To my mind, grants and aid from the British taxpayer are not the most important part of the solution of that problem.
It is all very well to go on saying that we must pour in more money. The hon. Member for Leek contradicted the idea, and I welcome his support, but two of his hon. Friends pursued the idea at great length. The hon. Member for Rugby said that we would have to give these islands much more money if they were to become a self-respecting nation. Surely, one of the essentials of being self-respecting is to pay one's own bills and not to have somebody else paying them? I am the last person in the world who would want to be stingy with my friends in the West Indies, but I think


we should keep grants and everything of that kind to a minimum and solve these problems by investment and other business methods.
I should like to make one comment on the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Hornsey (Sir D. Gammans), who talked about the effect on the United States of America of what is happening in the West Indies. The effect is a very good one indeed for, with the Federation in existence, the Americans are suddenly coming to the startling realisation that they are now a small country entirely surrounded by British Dominions. That seems to me to be a singularly happy state of affairs and I hope that the point will not be lost on our friends over there.
The right hon. Member for Wakefield (Mr. Creech Jones), in his speech welcoming the Bill, referred to Dominion status. The hon. Member for Salford, West said that he hoped he would live to see it. I would say to my right hon. Friend the Minister of State that if I do not live to see it in the next very few years, I shall be extremely disappointed.
We have heard a good deal today about the great differences and the great complications, the problems of communications and of economics which set great difficulties for the new Federation. I think it is a pity to keep stressing these things. My friends in the West Indies are very concerned in their minds about the great difficulties. To draw a parallel with the background of my native land, the difficulties faced by the West Indies today are nothing compared with the difficulties which Canada, and Australia also, faced at the beginning.
One can fly in four hours from Trinidad to Jamaica, but when the Federation of Canada was set up it took three weeks to go from Toronto to Montreal—by horse; there was often no other way of going in the early days. As for the problems of the differences of the people, the differences of the people in the various islands in the West Indies are really small in comparison with the immense differences which had to be overcome between the British-Canadians and the French-Canadians when their Federation was set up.
As for the problem of economics, I cannot recall that any of the Dominions

which grew up in the last century ever had a penny of economic aid from anybody at that time. The whole idea was unheard of. Let us, therefore, not exaggerate the difficulties.

Mr. J. Griffiths: It is true that in the nineteenth century most of these territories were developed by private capital. Is not the simple fact that we face in our age that private capital is not provided? Therefore, it is generally accepted—this is implicit in Point Four and everything else—that public capital will have to play an important part, particularly in providing the basic services of communications and the rest and in economic development.

Mr. Leather: There is a great deal in what the right hon. Gentleman says, but I do not want to get into a long argument about that.
However, where I think the party opposite went wrong—with great respect, where the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Llanelly went wrong at the end of war—was in putting public capital where it could not hope to succeed. I am all in favour of bullying the Government, and I do my best to do so, to get every penny out of them for investment in communications, in roads, railways and harbours; but the great mistake of the party opposite was that it tried to put Government investment into productive industry, and Governments always have and always will go astray there. Certainly, the earliest Dominions managed to survive and to arrive at their present powerful nationhood without any economic help from anybody.
I entirely agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Wembley, South (Mr. Russell) about the importance of stable trade. I hope we are quite clear that we are not going to lose interest in that matter now that the Federation is being set up, and that we are not going to say, "Now that the Federation is set up, let it get on with it," and not worry any more about the citrus agreements and sugar agreements and so on. I hope in particular that my right hon. Friend is keeping in close touch with our mutual right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade about what the Brazilians are trying to do to the banana agreement. Several of us propose to raise that subject in this House regularly and often,


as often as we can, until something is done about it. Those are the sort of things that will always be the responsibility of this country, not as an imperial Power, not as a donor of charity, but as a customer, a willing buyer, in a fair market at fair prices.
One of the greatest factors working for the success of Federation in the West Indies lies in the thorough understanding the political leaders of all parties there have of the need of capital and management. One sees no trace there of what was so common in the world ten years ago, and what still exists in some other countries, that arrogant, narrow nationalism, the distrust of any foreigner, or of anybody who has a bit of money.
The Prime Minister of Jamaica said to me when I last said goodbye to him a few weeks ago, "When you get up to New York, tell every American millionaire you find that we want him here in Jamaica." He is a wise man. He knows that is the way to make sure of help for developing his country. It is by attracting those who have capital and managerial and executive ability, encouraging them, instead of persecuting and vilifying them. That is the easy way to raise the standard of living of one's people, and the West Indian politicians, most of whom are close personal friends of mine, have a thorough understanding of that. I could wish that understanding were found more in the party opposite.

Mr. D. Jones: Now, now.

Mr. Leather: I wish the party opposite understood that. [An HON. MEMBER: "What about Trinidad oil?"] I wish the party opposite understood the Trinidad oil situation too, but everything they say about it makes it perfectly clear that they have not a clue.
I now come to make what is probably the first serious criticism in this debate. There are some things—not in the Bill, because the Bill is an immaculate Bill with nothing in it to which one could possibly object to—in the plan for the constitution and in the report of the February conference, which I personally do not like. This will not come as news to my right hon. Friend, because I bullied him about them every day during the conference. I object to the reserved powers in the constitution. I think that

ought to be said here, and I think the West Indians ought to know that some of us do object to these reserved powers.
The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Wakefield said that having three officials in the Council without a vote was an improvement on the previous situation. I entirely agree that it is an improvement, but in my opinion it is a great mistake to have them there at all. I think it is also a great mistake to have this wide, unlimited power for the Governor-General to reserve Bills.
What do these things mean? One day there will be a row. That row will come straight back to London. What will happen? Our West Indian friends will come here; there will be many Questions in this House; there will be headlines in the newspapers. And we shall give way. We could not possibly do otherwise.
It seems to me, therefore, that these reserved powers are illusory in the first place. We run all the risks of having a grave difference of opinion with our West Indian friends which would merely dissipate some of the immense good will they have towards us. The degree of good will and loyalty and of responsibility of outlook amongst the West Indian political leaders is unique in the Commonwealth. I wish more of our friends and fellow subjects in Africa and Asia shared it. The only safeguard which is worth having is the good will of the West Indian politicians, and we have got it. I freely acknowledge that my West Indian friends themselves agreed to these safeguards. I told them quite frankly I thought they were wrong to agree. I should not have agreed to them, and I do not agree to them. I think they are wrong from our point of view.
I think this point ought to be registered, because we put ourselves to a needless risk that at some stage in the next few years a difference of opinion will arise into which we shall inevitably be drawn because we have the reserved powers; so that the difference of opinion will immediately become, not a difference of opinion between the West Indians, but a difference of opinion between the West Indians and Britain, and our good will will suffer and be dissipated in this needless way. One has seen this happen once or twice in Africa.
Furthermore, by having reserved powers we provide the agitator, the irresponsible local politician, with completely gratuitous ammunition he otherwise would not have. If the powers do not exist, any argument which arises is a purely domestic West Indian political argument. The fact that they do exist, the fact that the Governor-General will reserve a Bill, means he will reserve it only because the Colonial Secretary tells him to. The only reason I can conceive for his reserving is that somebody in London tells him to do so then. The irresponsible local political agitator has a wonderful weapon immediately to hand with which to whack the responsible politicians over the head. He can say to them, "You are just stooges of the people in London." He can say to the people, "Put me in power, and I will get rid of the reserved powers. I will tell those people over in London they cannot do this and they cannot do that."
It seems to me that these powers are a positive menace. They set up risks which can do harm, and they achieve no positive good, because in the remote possibility of our wanting to use them, we should give way, because, I repeat, we could not do anything else.
Many tributes have been paid in this debate to those who have brought about the present happy situation. I would mention three men who have not, I think, been mentioned so far, and who, I believe, when the history books are written about the setting up of this Federation, will be marked down as amongst the servants of the British Colonial Empire who were amongst the real fathers of the West Indies Federation. They are Sir Hubert Rance, Sir Stephen Luke, and Sir Michael Foot. [HON. MEMBERS: "Sir Hugh Foot."] Of course. I beg everyone's pardon. That was a Freudian error the cause of which I cannot quite trace.
Tributes have been paid to our friends the politicians, and I certainly share enthusiasm for them. It is important, however, that those men who are the workers behind the scenes, and the people who do not make public speeches, should have their tribute.
It may be indelicate—but it would not be unusual either in the House or for me, in particular—if I mention that in the very near future my right hon. Friend will have a great and historic appoint-

ment to make, that of the first Governor-General of this Federation. May I say purely for myself, though I think that there are others who share my view, that, whatever other considerations may come to mind, if my right hon. Friend looks further than at one or other of the three men whom I have named I shall consider that great injustice will have been done. These men have made a great contribution. They are all universally respected in the West Indies and have more experience than any other individual in the whole of the Colonial Service could possibly have of dealing with the problems in the West Indies.
Finally, the most important facet of this whole matter, and what is to me most exciting, is that here we have for the first time what the British Commonwealth needs more than anything else in the world if it is to survive, that is, a successfully working multi-racial nation. That is the great thing about the West Indies. This is the most completely multi-racial society, where colour barriers whether one is white, black, brown or yellow, mean nothing and where there are millionaires and poor, vice-chancellors of universities, street cleaners, business men, lawyers, doctors, and people of every conceivable kind, living and working and worshipping together.
This is an enormously more important principle than many of us realise in this country. If we do not solve the racial problem there is no possible basis upon which the British Commonwealth can continue to exist at all. It will fold up, and very quickly, with catastrophic results for the people of Britain. As long as we positively encourage colour prejudice, not only in Africa but right here in this country, and as long as we practise colour prejudice we are merely scaling the doom of the British Commonwealth. The most important thing that is happening in the West Indies is that our friends there are proving that the multi-racial state is a real possibility, and it is being done within the framework of the British Commonwealth.
I have made some serious criticisms, I felt the debate was running a grave risk of being a mutual back-slapping session as a result of our being all so happy about this development. I hope that my criticisms have been constructive. I know that my


friends in the West Indies will realise that they do not dampen in any way my enthusiasm for this Federation. I hope and pray that the British Caribbean Federation will achieve complete Dominion status and complete control, over its affairs as quickly as possible.

1.34 p.m.

Mr. David Jones (The Hartlepools): The only reason why I seek to impose myself on the House for a few minutes is that I have never been to the West Indies, though that does not mean that I have not tried to understand the West Indian point of view or that I have not a large number of good friends there. On the only occasion when I visited the Caribbean area, the ship in which I was travelling called in the Dutch West Indies and not in the British West Indies.
Whatever difference of opinion we may have had with the hon. Member for Somerset, North (Mr. Leather), I am sure that we agree with his concluding sentences. When the hon. Member entered into the realm of economics in the early part of his speech, I thought that he was missing the substance for the shadow. The important point about the agreements which were entered into with the West Indies territories was that they gave stability to industry in the West Indies, and gave a guarantee to the peasant farmers there that their products would be consumed somewhere in the world and that they would be paid for them. If the hon. Member can assure me that his capitalist friends in the remaining parts of the world will be prepared to undertake two or three things in connection with these agreements, I am not concerned whether they are bulk-buying agreements undertaken by Governments or agreements undertaken by individuals.

Mr. Leather: The whole point of my remarks was precisely what the hon. Member has said. They provide these things without the clumsy extravagance of Government bulk purchase. That is the phrase I used.

Mr. Jones: The hon. Member for Somerset, North and the hon. Member for Wembley, South (Mr. Russell) complained a good deal that there is instability at present in the West Indies because there is not a guaranteed market for its produce. The hon. Member for Wembley, South, cited Havana cigars as an

example. We know perfectly well that over the years from 1951 the West Indies Governments have repeatedly had to make representations to the British Government to endeavour to bring some stability into the West Indian economy and for the products of their agriculture. The hon. Member knows perfectly well that a considerable time elapsed before the agreement dealing with citrus crops was ready.
There are certain prerequisities to the investments which the American millionaire friends of the hon. Member for Somerset, North might make in the West Indies. There must be some guarantee that a fairly substantial proportion of the profits made in the West Indies by private enterprise will be used for improving the standard of living of the people who are the producers. If there is one complaint more than another against capitalism in the past, particularly in some of our Colonial Territories, it is that too high a proportion of the result of productive enterprise has been taken to other parts of the world. I have spent a large part of my life in South Wales, and we know what happened to mining investments in the inter-war years.

Mr. J. Griffiths: The investors sucked us dry.

Mr. Jones: Large numbers of people during the First World War made huge profits in the shipbulding industry, but they did not re-invest those profits in the districts where they made them.
The hon. Member for Hornsey (Sir D. Gammans) was right in saying that we were witnessing this morning the birth of a new nation. We should remember that there have been many notable births in the past, but the people have perished and the ideas have perished because in the early years the new nation has not been properly nurtured. This proposal for a British Caribbean Federation is one of the greatest experiments that the Commonwealth has witnessed, and I hope that it will succeed.
I listened with interest to the hon. Member for Somerset, North when he spoke about the early years of Canada, Australia, and New Zealand. But there is a difference. There is already a vast population in the West Indies which was not so in the case of Canada, Australia


or New Zealand. There are already 3 million people living in those islands, many living on the verge of poverty. Therefore the problem is not quite the same as it was in the early years of exploitation and exploration in those other territories.
Because of those facts, because of the problems of communications for territories which lie in an arc of 1,500 miles from one end to another—I think my geography is sound on this point—we can appreciate the difficult problem of transportation from one island to another. Those two factors themselves make this experiment all the more exciting.
The hon. Member for Hornsey was right to point out that if this experiment fails there will be no going back on our tracks, and that what may emerge is something so foreign to our way of life that we cannot contemplate it. Therefore, we must take precautions in the early stages so that the experiment will succeed.
This brings me to the point which I want specially to mention. The Minister of State for Colonial Affairs will remember that recently I have had some exchanges with him about the absence of provision for compulsory education in a number of islands in the Caribbean. The one thing more than any other which is likely to help this experiment to succeed will be if we can inculcate into the minds of the common people of the West Indies the consequences of failure. That can only be done if we can expand as rapidly as possible the provision of elementary education.
I am not suggesting that it is possible to do that from London or from the Colonial Office. That must largely be the responsibility of the people on the spot, but they need all the encouragement which it is possible to give them. The right hon. Gentleman told us this morning that we are already guaranteeing a sum of about £566,000, which is the difference between the income and the expenditure of the territories for the current year. But ought we not to be thinking in terms of an expanded expenditure? Ought we not to be thinking in terms of a developing education? Ought we not to be thinking in terms of developing social services? Ought we not to be thinking in terms of encouraging a higher standard of living

for the common people of these territories?
The possibility that this experiment might fail seems to me to be an added reason why we should do everything possible to make it succeed. I disagree with the statement of the hon. Member for Somerset, North that when we give grants to territories we remove self-respect. We have not removed self-respect in this country by establishing a National Health Service. There is no loss of self-respect of the part of the ordinary Briton in 1956; indeed, there is more self-respect now, because he knows that we have so ordered our affairs that when ill-health falls upon a poor family in this community, it is guaranteed the best possible medical service. To give to the people of the West Indies that prospect in the not too distant future is not to take away their self-respect but to encourage them to go ahead in the belief that, as the years roll by, they can, by a developed economy, help themselves to be self-sustaining.
Therefore, I welcome this exciting experiment. I hope that it will succeed, but it will only do so if in its early years we carefully nurture it and help it along its way to the maximum possible extent.

1.44 p.m.

Mr. Nigel Fisher: I do not want to follow the hon. Member for The Hartlepools (Mr. D. Jones) too far, but I must refer briefly, in supplementation of what my hon. Friend the Member for Somerset, North (Mr. Leather) said, to the Commonwealth Sugar Agreement. I do this only for the reason that hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite seem to have such strange ideas about it. In fact, it gives a guaranteed market, and it is to that Agreement more than to any other single economic factor that the West Indies look for their present comparative prosperity.

Mr. D. Jones: But the hon. Gentleman will recognise that it became obligatory on the part of the Government to introduce statutory regulations to make that possible. The Agreement could not have been entered into by private enterprise without the assistance of the Government.

Mr. Fisher: I do not feel called upon to answer that interruption. The Minister who signed that Agreement was my right hon. and gallant Friend the present Home


Secretary as Minister of Food, and it was much to his credit that he made such an excellent Agreement. As to the point about cigars, I fully agree with what the hon. Gentleman said in that respect, but it is a very small factor economically in the life of the West Indies, confined entirely to Jamaica, and not in any way comparable with the far larger issue of sugar.
This is merely an enabling Bill and I do not know whether it is strictly necessary. However, I welcome it because it gives us the opportunity to debate the West Indies in this House, which comes all too seldom. The Bill is not a controversial one in any sense; indeed, it fulfils a wish and a prospect for which both parties in this House have long worked. The unanimity with which we can bless its Second Reading today should not, however, lead us to suppose that it has been easy to achieve. Federations are always difficult to achieve. They are attractive in theory but, in practice, they bristle with complications, and inevitably with local conflicts and difficulties. As the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Wakefield (Mr. Creech Jones) himself said, the geographical factor has not been one of the easiest to overcome.
When I was in the West Indies last year, I was surprised at the fact, which I think many people in this country do not realise, that the distance from Port of Spain in Trinidad to Kingston in Jamaica is over 1,000 miles, and I think that the British West Indian Airways has done a great deal to improve communications. In fact, it has been an important factor in assisting the advance towards federation. There remain the inevitable geographical difficulties, of course, but I think that personal contacts, the visits of politicians, business men and even private individuals, which have been made possible by British West Indian Airways, have contributed largely towards federation.
Like other hon. Members, I want to pay a tribute to the Colonial Office and to the successive Colonial Secretaries, from Colonel Oliver Stanley in 1945 to my right hon. Friend 11 years later, and including the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Wakefield. They deserve our congratulations on the patient negotiations which they have each in turn

undertaken, and on their steady support of the concept of Federation. I think also that the West Indian leaders have shown admirable restraint and statesmanship in the way they have approached this matter. They have had to make sacrifices of local political interests of their own in order to further the wider Federal Union about which we are talking today.
I think there has been—and I should like to pay this tribute, too—a rather remarkable accession of political maturity and judgment in the West Indies during the last decade since the introduction of adult suffrage. It has been a remarkable thing, and it is still developing, certainly with the passage of every year, and I was going to say almost with the passage of every month, because things change very quickly in the Caribbean and one is quickly out of date and out of touch with the rapid changes which take place.
The political situation there is fascinating, because almost more than anywhere else in the world politics in the Caribbean depend tremendously upon personalities and, therefore, differ very widely in each Colony. But there is a pattern of political evolution which, I think, is common to almost every territory, and to those of us who have visited those beautiful islands it is tremendously encouraging to find that the granting of political responsibility and the growth of self-government arc creating a great sense of responsibility among the local political leaders.
Each Colony is different because the pace of the advance towards self-government has been somewhat different, but even in the less advanced Colonies responsible leaders are emerging, and in the more advanced Colonies the leaders are developing into mature and experienced statesmen of international calibre. A very good example is the case of our old friend Sir Alexander Bustamente who, I think I am right in saying—I hope he will forgive me if I am wrong—not much more than ten years ago was gaoled by the British as a seditious agitator and now describes himself as an ardent Imperialist. It is remarkable that that can happen in ten years.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: There is a much more conspicuous case than that. One of the Prime Ministers


attending the present conference spent seven years in prison.

Mr. Fisher: I am talking about the West Indies. I think I will confine myself to this Bill. There are other cases. There are Mr. Grantley Adams of Barbados, and Mr. Gomes of Trinidad; they are statesmen of mature judgment and experience. And no one who has met Mr. Manley of Jamaica would deny his charm and skill, his political sophistification, if I may so put it, and his high intellectual stature. These are big men by any international standard, and they have done a tremendous amount for the Caribbean.
Only in British Guiana, which has not been much mentioned today, has there been a reverse. Only there has the pattern of political evolution been changed. I think it was pure bad luck that this was so in British Guiana. In the other Colonies, the political leaders who have emerged have, in fact, with the grant of universal suffrage, been Left Wing agitators, but they have been Left Wing agitators who could learn by experience and become responsible and democratic political leaders. In British Guiana the pattern is different, because by sheer ill-chance the political agitator, the Left wing leader there, happened to be a Communist. I think it was pure bad luck.
I have talked to Dr. and Mrs. Jagan personally. They were Communists in 1953 and, quite honestly, they are Communists today. Certainly Mrs. Jagan does not attempt to deny it. I hope I am not introducing a controversial note into this harmonious debate, but I think the Government were fully justified in suspending the constitution in 1953. I do not think any British Government could have worked with the Jagans. Furthermore, one thing which was made clear to me when I was there last summer was that the leaders of West Indian opinion in the other Caribbean Colonies also would not work with the Jagans. But the people in British Guiana are not Communists. They are no more Communists than we are. So I am sure that the setback there will only be temporary and that British Guiana like the other Colonies, will soon be able to resume her advance towards self-government. There are indications that more moderate men are now emerging

as alternatives to the Jagans, and I feel reasonably optimistic myself about the political future of British Guiana.
Naturally, like other hon. Members, I am sorry that British Guiana has not been able to enter into federation yet, but there is some evidence that her intention to stay out is neither final nor irrevocable. I think that she will come in, if only because it will become increasingly clear that it will be in her own interests to do so, as well as in the interests of the other Caribbean Colonies.
There are certainly more Guianese in favour of Federation than I expected to find there. But I hope there will be no attempt to rush them in. This sort of issue should not be decided by a nominated Government. I think that is extremely important. It should be freely chosen by the elected representatives of the people. That is the best and the only method by which British Guiana can enter federation—the best method not only from the point of view of British Guiana but from the point of view also of Federation.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: Is it the hon. Gentleman's argument that if one does not like the people who are elected, one is justified in suspending the constitution?

Mr. Fisher: No, but I do not see why we should have to tolerate and work with Communists in the British Empire—and the West Indian leaders in the other Colonies do not disagree with me.

Mr. Hughes: Even if they were elected?

Mr. Fisher: I do not think they were elected by Communists. I think they were elected by people who were not perhaps highly educated politically. They were elected as Left wing leaders who would alleviate the anxieties and conditions of some of the people in these Colonies. The people were fooled when they voted for Communists.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Sir Rhys Hopkin Morris): This issue is a little remote from the Bill.

Mr. Fisher: I agree, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. I am afraid I have been led astray from the main theme of my argument.
I wanted to put in one caveat, and that is with reference to the question of the elections in British Guiana when they take place—I suppose next year, and possibly about the autumn of next year. I hope that federation itself will not be the main issue in those first elections. I think it would be too soon. These people are not highly educated politically. It would be confusing to them. I would certainly prefer the first elections in British Guiana to be on a straight issue—I put this to the hon. Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes)—of democracy versus Communism. Let them decide that as a straight issue. Then later, the federation matter can be canvassed, and possibly in the second election in the Colony federation can be the issue.

Mr. Hughes: Suppose the Communists, or those who are called Communists, were elected again. Would the hon. Gentleman again suspend the Constitution?

Mr. Fisher: My hope is that when the matter is put to them as a straight issue, the people will not vote for Communism. I believe they will not.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: We are back on this theme again.

Mr. Fisher: Yes, we must leave it, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. I am in full agreement with you.
I am going right away from British Guiana because the hon. Member for South Ayrshire cannot resist interrupting me about it. In the Caribbean as a whole, I believe—and other hon. Members have expressed the same opinion—federation is a tremendous step forward. It is, in fact, the logical final step towards independence and Dominion status. I hope—and I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Somerset, North agrees—that Dominion status will not be delayed too long, because when a development of this sort is certain and is bound to come, it is much better to give it freely a little too soon, than to have to grant it a trifle reluctantly a little too late.
We have got to face the fact that there are great difficulties still in this matter. There are still many unresolved problems. The capital, for instance, has yet to be chosen. I have my own views, and I expect many others have, as to where it

should be, but I think it wiser not to express them. A special Commission is sitting trying to decide between suitable alternative sites, and the decision must lie with the West Indies. It would be wrong for us in this House to attempt to influence that decision in any way.
Then there is the appointment—my hon. Friend the Member for Somerset, North referred to this, and his words were very wise—of the first Governor-General. It is a tremendously important appointment, and a great deal will depend on the Governor-General's personality and his wisdom in helping and guiding local leaders through all the pitfalls and problems which will inevitably face them. My hon. Friend was right when he suggested that the Governor-General should be a man of wide political experience and judgment and certainly not a figurehead. I am sorry that the Federation Conference held here in February decided that no one might serve both in the Federal Government and in the Government of his own Colony.
That is a point which has been taken up once in this debate, but not developed. It is a provision which will deprive the Federation of its own most able leaders, or of many of them, at the most crucial initial stage of its development. Although the quality of West Indian political leaders is, as I said, very high, no one will deny that they are rather thin on the ground numerically, particularly in the smaller Colonies. It was the West Indians who made that decision, and I am not, of course, blaming Her Majesty's Government, but it may turn out to have been a mistaken decision.
There are other matters into which I should not go, because I am in danger of overruning my time. It will be necessary for the Federation to establish its own security forces. The Federation will have to work for and achieve its own financial independence as soon as it can. Freedom of movement in the Federation will have to come about and many other difficult problems still await us. But with this Bill we are well on the road to unity, cohesion and a really genuine self-government in the Caribbean. Federation is a natural, necessary and inevitable milestone on this road. Its establishment will create a new nation in the British Commonwealth and, indeed, in the Western world, whose future will be important and significant. I think that


all of those who have contributed, in however small a way, in the West Indies or at Westminster, can be proud that this federation is about to come into being. We all wish it every success and all of us, particularly those who have been there, will do everything in our power to help it in every way.

2.2 p.m.

Mr. Joseph Reeves: I have listened with very great interest to the speeches which have been made today on this great concept of West Indian federation. I can remember as a young man having a long talk with the late Oliver Stanley on the problems of the British Colonies, and I could not help but be impressed with the progressive views which he held when he was a very young man. As the years passed, he made his contributions towards dealing with these interesting problems and it was right that the Minister of State for Colonial Affairs should pay tribute to his work. The right hon. Gentleman was also fully justified in paying tribute to the consistent efforts of my right hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield (Mr. Creech Jones) in colonial affairs. Many years before the war my right hon. Friend was making himself acquainted with our colonial problems, and he became a master of the issues confronting this country, even in those days.
The Bill represents a good deal of intimate co-operation between the British Government and the Governments of the West Indies. It is an agreed Bill, agreed by both sides of the House and by the countries of the West Indies, which agree even with the reserve powers to which some of us have objected from time to time. I remember Mr. Norman Manley, the Chief Minister of Jamaica, once saying that the extraordinary thing about this development was that people were being given more self-government than they were demanding at the time. Even so, I think that the reserve powers have been a mistake, and I agree with the hon. Member for Somerset, North (Mr. Leather) that that is an aspect which rather spoils the whole conception.
The Federation has many aspects perhaps unequalled by any other part of the Commonwealth. The hon. Member for Somerset, North said that it was a multi-racial society almost unique in history. When the Federation is established, it will have powerful repercussions on

other societies in various parts of the world. I am sure that it will have its effect upon African populations, who will look upon it as a way in which the white races and the coloured races should be associated in the great problems of Government. Today we have seen history in the making. We may not be able to see all its implications, but I am sure that as the years pass men and women will say that in this Bill we were wise in our day and generation.
Modern transport has made federation possible. But for the aeroplane, it would have been foolish to have mooted it. No one would have dreamt of putting forward such a proposal without the aeroplane, and the airways of the British West Indies have made federation possible. When the Parliamentary delegation was in the West Indies last year, we hopped from island to island with perfect ease, and I once counted nineteen different aeroplanes which were used. It has been said that that is a very expensive way of transport, and of course that is so. Other means must be employed, but on the other hand it has made federation—so necessary in that area—not only a possibility but capable of realisation.
Unfortunately, the more one sees of the area, the more one realises how in years gone by it has been starved of capital investment. We do not want to complain about the policies of past Governments, or of past investors, but it is true—one sees it on every hand—that capital investment in the area has been hopelessly neglected. Today large sums of money will have to be spent to make up for the deficiencies in the past. With their economic development scheme, the Jamaican Government are endeavouring to make up for the deficiencies, but the retardation caused by lack of investment in the past has made the problem as severe as it could be.
I noticed when I was there with the Parliamentary Delegation, especially in British Honduras, the need for capital investment. So far as capital investment is concerned it is almost a virgin area. Vast areas of the territory are scrub and swamp. Many millions of pounds will have to be invested if it is to be made a viable area. The cry will be for more and more capital investment, and I hope


that the British Government will concern themselves with that matter. The people are poverty stricke—make no mistake about that. They are as poor as they can be. The standard of living in British Honduras is exceedingly low, as is mentioned in the Report which the delegation prepared upon its return, and it will remain so unless large sums of money are pumped into the area.
The great mahogany forests of British Honduras have been depleted. Unfortunately, there has been very little re-afforestation in the past. That alone has made the people almost vicious towards the British Government and our people. When we were there the people told us that we had literally robbed them of their vast resources. It is true that we are doing a big job in trying to make up for those past losses—we saw evidences of that wherever we went—but an enormous job remains to be done.
The people of that area look to this country for assistance because they see us enjoying a standard of living which is incomparably higher than theirs. They want a national health service. We went into areas which had very limited hospital services, and where many miles had to be travelled before people could get to hospital and receive qualified treatment.
Their educational system is about as primitive as it can be in the modern world. We discovered that in vast areas practically the only educational authorities were religious bodies. Although those areas are striving with might and main to build up a system of universal compulsory elementary education, a secondary and a good technical educational system is completely beyond their resources, and will remain so for many years to come. We therefore have very grave responsibilities in that area, not only today, but in the years to come. We must help the people there to make up those deficiencies.
There are, however, some very bright lights in the area. The University College of the West Indies is a shining example of co-operative effort by all concerned—the British Government and the various islands of the West Indies—to build up a university system of education. The job is being done very well, and the university hospital is one

of the most interesting experiments that I have ever seen. I was thrilled by the keenness of all concerned to build up not only the University College but also its hospital section. There it is, nestling in the valley, overlooked by the Blue Mountains—a wonderful setting in a wonderful island; the result of co-operation between the island and the British Government. If there is anything which is a tribute to our joint association it is that university.
Various parts of the area are undertaking some very remarkable educational experiments. We visited various institutes which, in days gone by, had been sponsored by means of various colonial development and welfare funds. In one case we heard that a million young coffee trees had been distributed to the farmers free of charge, and that they were practically immune from all the terrible diseases which attack the coffee plant. That scheme is being undertaken by a group of first-class specialists, who are as keen on their work as one can imagine. I was very much impressed.
Many problems face the West Indies, including the terrible one of unemployment. There are times in the year when as many as 20 per cent. of the people are without work. Even in Jamaica, which is the most highly developed part of the area, that terrible problem is experienced. It arises because of the nature of their work. The planters can employ people only for a certain number of months during each year, and for the remainder of the year those employees must try to find alternative work.
What is needed is the development of secondary industries. It should be made possible for them to make things for themselves. I visited co-operative craft factories where the workers were beginning to make good that deficiency, but that work is in its infancy. It is essential that the people should cease to be dependent upon imports which they can make themselves if the capital is forth-coming. Factories need to be established all over the area, to make goods which the people use day by day, such as boots, shoes and clothing, as well as food.
They import an enomous amount of tinned food. I visited co-operative stores where I saw tins of goods that we would not dream of stocking over here, because their contents come fresh from our own


fields. The present situation makes it almost impossible for the economy of the area to be viable.
On one occasion I was speaking to one of their leading politicians, who had talked about their leaving the Empire. I said, "Well, do you think that you would find friends elsewhere?" He said, "Oh, you will always look after us, because, after all is said and done, we are one of your children". I said, "Yes, but there must be some sort of reciprocity between child and parent". That is the situation. They belong to us; they are our children. We must not forget the history of the area. For three hundred years it has been part and parcel of the British system. The people went to the area as slaves. Men like Wilberforce fought for the abolition of slavery, but in some respects it has remained ever since.
If the Bill means that we will go forward in a great co-operative effort to make the West Indies another example of British genius, I am sure that the repercussions will be felt all over the world. It will be regarded as an example of our genius, not only for granting self-government when it is proper to do so, but also for furthering the inter-relations of mankind, especially in economic affairs.

2.18 p.m.

Major Tufton Beamish: Having listened to all the speeches in the debate, I find it quite impossible not to realise that the significance of the Bill is in inverse ratio to its size. I shall make a rather disjointed speech. I had hoped to speak for a quarter of an hour, but I intend to cut that time by half.
I want to draw attention to the fact that a re-reading of the Report of the Royal Commission of 1939, to which the right hon. Member for Wakefield (Mr. Creech Jones) referred, reminds one of the very considerable economic and social progress which has been made in the Caribbean area in the last few decades, going back as far as 1922, which I believe was the year when the British Government first accepted the principle of federation. The development of that principle has been in the minds of hon. Members in all parties since then. In spite of the colossal progress which has to be made in the future, that which has already been made has been steady,

though unspectacular, and all unthinking critics of colonialism would do well to study that progress before they open their mouths again.
Almost every right hon. and hon. Member who has spoken has drawn attention to some of the snags which are likely to arise. I do not wish to harp on them at undue length, but we all agree that those snags or problems will be overcome only by the broadminded far-seeing statesmanship of the West Indian political leaders themselves, working in co-operation.
On the subject of new capital I will say only that in my opinion the new capital which is so urgently needed to develop agriculture and industry in the area must come from public sources, and from private British and foreign sources. It is because I hold that view that I was one of those who, right from the beginning, welcomed the Trinidad oil deal.
Some of the ideals which this Federation seeks to achieve will be far from easy of attainment. For example, paragraph 7 of the Report by the Conference on West Indian Federation speaks of the declared common intention:
… that there should he the greatest possible freedom of movement for persons and goods within the Federation.
That is something which all those who have studied the problems in the West Indies realise will be very hard indeed to achieve. Indeed, some important reservations have already been made on the subject.
The question of communications has been mentioned by several hon. Members. We all know what great distances are involved. Various examples have been given. The distance from Belize to Georgetown is as much as 2,000 miles and it is 1,400 or 1,500 miles from the Cayman Islands to Trinidad. We all know that inadequate sea and air transport has been one of the main factors of the past parochial outlook which has prevailed in the West Indies. That is something which is gradually being dissipated, but I am not at all happy about the future of sea and air transport.
I have not got the exact figures, but my recollection is that British West Indian Airways has consistently lost money. I have an idea that during the last year


or eighteen months it has lost even more money than over any similar period in the past. The reasons for that are not very far to seek. I am not apportioning any blame, but I draw attention to the fact that cheap sea and air transport is absolutely vital for the development of the new Federation.
I should like to know, though I do not suppose that the Minister will be able to tell us today, what plans B.O.A.C. has for the development of cheap air transport, and whether the Corporation has the right type of planes. Amphibian Grumman Goose aircraft were flown in some areas in the Windwards but I believe that they have been replaced by land planes—I think by Herons. Might not the Handley-Page Herald, with a range of about 1,000 miles, and which carries freight or passengers equally well, be the ideal aircraft for this kind of inter-island hopping? It is an inexpensive aircraft, and it would be interesting to know whether B.O.A.C. has considered using it for future operations.
The subject of cheaper communications raises an extremely knotty problem. It may be that for the next few years it will be impossible to make air services pay in the West Indies. Although we naturally wish to see B.O.A.C. operating at a profit, we must ask ourselves whether it will not have to take the rough with the smooth in certain instances, and be prepared to sustain a quite considerable loss in expanding facilities in the West Indies. I wish to touch briefly on the question of the future of British Guiana and British Honduras. There is little that I wish to add to what has been said. I welcome the decision of the Governor of British Guiana last April, when he made it perfectly clear that the possible junction of British Guiana with the Federation would have to depend on further constitutional advances, and presumably upon an elected majority in that country. I am sure that that was a right decision.
Equally, I am glad to know that staff for the new federal civil service can be drawn from both British Guiana and British Honduras, although those territories have not yet decided to join the Federation. That will mean that those concerned will have an inside knowledge of the working of the Federation, and

thus they will be in a better position to judge whether to join. I am one of those who hope that they will both decide to join. I think that we all share that view.
Because most of the units in this Federation are singly non-viable, the Bill provides the only sensible solution and the only possible alternative to continued colonial status or standstill, which would involve a great deal of frustration. Like other hon. Members, I very much hope that the time is not far distant when the new Federation will achieve Dominion status. Among many reasons which give me hope that this will be the eventual outcome is the quite special and very real affection in which the Royal Family is held in many West Indian islands. That is undoubtedly an important factor of this situation.
Naturally, we hope that it will not be too long before the new Federation becomes a full member of the United Nations. It is our hope, therefore, that through political federation, loose and flexible in the first instance, but ever closer as experience is gained, there will grow up economic and social co-operation which will benefit the whole area for the greater prosperity and happiness of all the British people who live there. I am confident that in giving the Bill a Second Reading we are moving along the right road, and I know that everyone in this House will watch the progress of the Federation with real interest, with a strong desire to give all the help that we possibly can, and with genuine understanding.

2.28 p.m.

Mr. Bernard Braine: One could not listen to the debate without realising that this is a great day. It is a great day for the people of the West Indies, for us here in the United Kingdom and for the Commonwealth as a whole. The Bill is the culmination of a very long period of painstaking and patient effort in which the right hon. Member for Llanelly (Mr. J. Griffiths), the right hon. Member for Wakefield (Mr. Creech Jones), the late Mr. Oliver Stanley, Lord Chandos and my right hon. Friend the present Colonial Secretary have all played a distinguished and memorable part.
This is no sudden decision. When I was in the West Indies five years ago a


distinguished Barbadian said to me, with true English empiricism, "Federation is inevitable; it is coming; it may take five years or it may take ten, but it has got to grow naturally." One reason why we may feel confident that this experiment will be a success is because it is no sudden development. The idea has grown steadily and surely through the years.
History plays strange tricks with people. In the West Indies, it has brought within the circle of the Crown a wide variety of extremely interesting and picturesque islands in a wide variety of ways; some conquered, some settled and some acquired by treaty; all of them beautiful in nature but poor in resources. The saddest trick of all is that today 3½million people are living in this collection of small islands extremely vulnerable economically and widely separated by lack of communications. I think it true to say that the great Canadian Dominion would not exist but for the Canadian Pacific Railway. I suggest also that, but for the development of air communications in the last few years, we should not be discussing this Bill today. Unless attention is given to the need, the continuing need, to develop and improve communications between the constituent parts of the new Federation, it will suffer grave disadvantage.
Considering the chequered history and vicissitudes of the British Caribbean, the fact that we are discussing this Bill at all is a tremendous tribute to the quality of the West Indian people themselves and their leaders. I have been particularly interested in the economic problems of Colonial Territories for a long time. I have always believed that unless one provides a viable economic base, without which it is impossible to provide decent social services, it is not much use talking in terms of constitutional development. These are the two sides of the same medal.
I have always been attracted to the federation proposal, because if units which are necessarily competitive with each other—they all produce the same sort of agricultural products—come together they are much more likely to attract the capital necesary for their essential development. In the past, the tragedy of the West Indies has been too great a dependence on too few agricul-

tural products. It has not only been a case of having all their eggs in one basket, but of having too few eggs.
I listened with interest to the remarks of the hon. Member for The Hartlepools (Mr. D. Jones) about the vulnerability of the economy. It was a little unnecessary for the hon. Gentleman, however, to voice the fear that if foreign capital came into the West Indies too much in the way of profits might be taken out. After all, the West Indian Governments have unofficial majorities in their Legislatures now, and once they have a Federal Government they will have the means of ensuring the proper utilisation of their resources. But against raising from industry by way of taxation appropriate revenue, they will have to balance the desirability of attracting as much capital as possible into their new industries.
I welcome this experiment, because it gives a better chance of attracting capital and thereby of arresting the alarming drift away from the islands of the best of the young men. When I was in New York in March, I learned that the British-born West Indians constitute only 6 per cent. of the negro population in that great city. Yet they provide no less than one-third of the professional negro folk in New York and between one-third and a quarter of the skilled artisans. One finds West Indians playing an active part in the social, political and cultural life of New York. Why is that? It is because these are the elite, who have not found it possible within the West Indies to express that which lies within them, and so they have emigrated. It is the best who go.
Today all of us are conscious of the fact that every week sees a fresh wave of immigrants arriving in this country from the West Indies. What I have said about those in New York applies equally to those who come here. One cannot fail to be struck by the cheerfulness, the intelligence and indeed the charm of a good many of those who come to this country to find jobs. But, frankly, they should not be here. They should be in their own islands helping to build up a new and better West Indies. I believe that the best justification for this Measure is the chance which it gives for the West Indian leaders to create confidence in the region, attract capital, develop their


slender resources and so keep more of their better people back home. One must bear in mind that the trickle of West Indian immigrants after the war, which no one noticed at first, has now become a flood. I am told that 26,000 came here last year and in the first half of this year no less than 14,000 or 15,000 have arrived. This is a serious situation for us because of housing difficulties, but I suggest that it is even more serious for the West Indies.
I welcome this Bill also, because it brings in to being a new nation. My hon. Friend the Member for Somerset, North (Mr. Leather) in a most eloquent speech, struck absolutely the right note when he said that this will be the first multi-racial nation to join the inner circle of the Commonwealth self-governing states. That is a fact of enormous importance in this divided world, riddled as it is with racial tension and suspicion. Undoubtedly the new West Indian Federation will add to the rich diversity of the Commonwealth and bring new lustre to our family of nations.

2.37 p.m.

Lieut.-Colonel Marcus Lipton: I am happy to follow the hon. Member for Essex, South-East (Mr. Braine) because he put his finger on a point which persuades me to give a welcome to the proposed Caribbean Federation. The hon. Gentleman referred to the drift from the West Indies which has now become a flood. Many West Indians have come to this country, quite a number of them to my constituency. The over-riding reason for that drift is economic. I am hopeful that this Federation will improve the economic prospects of the West Indies so that it will not be necessary for this immigration to continue.
When referring to the contribution made by West Indians to the life of New York, the hon. Member for Essex, South-East did not mention that the United States now makes it extremely difficult, if not impossible, for immigration from the West Indies, such as occurred before the war, to take place. For that reason the stream which formally went westward from the West Indies has been diverted to an easterly direction, and so the emigrants come to this country. I should be out of order were I to go into too much detail about the recent econo-

mic developments in Trinidad. I hope, however, that one consequence of recent proposals which have been brought to our notice will be so to improve the economic situation there as to make Trinidad more prosperous.
I hope that one of the direct results of this Federation will be to promote complete freedom between the islands constituting the Federation. For some time past it has been extremely difficult for anyone wishing to leave Jamaica to go to Trinidad and settle there because the Government of Trinidad did not wish to import unemployed people from other parts of the West Indies.
I hope that as a result of this Federation there will be complete freedom of movement of population between the different islands of the West Indies, so that if one develops economically more rapidly than another it will be able to absorb the surplus population of islands like Jamaica and other places where people have not the opportunity of earning a livelihood. I am glad to associate myself with all those hon. Members who have wished the Federation well.

2.40 p.m.

Mr. Hare: With the permission of the House, I should like to say a few words about what I think has been a most interesting and genuinely first-class debate. This is a Friday, but the quality of the speeches this afternoon has been quite exceptional. I should particularly like to mention the contributions made by my hon. Friends the Members for Somerset, North (Mr. Leather) and Hornsey (Sir D. Gammans), and to congratulate the hon. Gentleman the Member for Greenwich (Mr. Reeves) and the hon. Gentleman the Member for Rugby (Mr. J. Johnson) on two extremely useful speeches. So many other people made invaluable contributions, like my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool, South (Sir R. Robinson) and others, that I feel it almost invidious to mention them all by name.
I should like to deal with one or two of the direct questions put to me. The right hon. Member for Wakefield (Mr. Creech Jones), asked me three questions. What will be the relationship between the unit Governments and the Secretary of State? What will be the relationship between the Governor-General and the Governments of the units? And what


reserve powers will be placed in the hands of the Governor-General? The Secretary of State for the Colonies will in fact retain the same constitutional arrangement with the unit Governments as he has at present. The Federal Governor-General will not take away the Secretary of State's responsibility within the field allotted to the Governors of the unit territories. It is hoped that the Federal Government will play an important part in facilitating the co-ordination of unit Government policies.
So far as the reserve powers are concerned—and on that my hon. Friend the Member for Somerset, North was at variance with me and my right hon. Friend—these powers are that the Governor-General shall have discretion in the matter of consenting to Bills or reserving them for Her Majesty's assent. It is, therefore, very much the same arrangement as exists in the advanced constitutions in the Colonies. Her Majesty's Government will, of course, retain special responsibilities in the West Indies for defence and external affairs, and will also be responsible for giving a large grant-in-aid. I think that if we have these responsibilities we must have some powers. I would point out to hon. Members opposite and to my hon. Friends that these powers have been assented to very readily by the leaders of the West Indian countries themselves.
There has been considerable interest in the subject of investment, which was dealt with by the hon. Member for Rugby, and by the hon. Member for Salford, West (Mr. Royle) and the hon. Member for Leek (Mr. Harold Davies). Of course, investment is important, but we must keep a sense of proportion. Investment, in fact, will depend on the ability of this country to earn a surplus. That is a basic fact of life which we have to face. Therefore, I do not think that we can talk in terms of hoping to pour limitless sums of money into various projects within the Commonwealth and Empire or elsewhere, however much we may wish to do so.

Mr. J. Johnson: Lord Chandos always said that we could not invest a deficit. While we can give loans to Libya and many other non-Imperial countries—we do not object to that—I hope that we shall be able to give a little more aid to

our own people inside the Commonwealth.

Mr. Hare: I do not think that anyone should denigrate the aid that we are already giving. Although I indicated that grants-in-aid to the Colonial Territories in the West Indies amounted this year to £560,000, I think the House should know that since April, 1946, the total direct aid given by this country to the West Indies has been £55 million—a very considerable sum of money—which includes colonial welfare, grants in aid for administration and grants for specific purposes; some £10 million of this sum was given in hurricane aid, and there was a very ready response by the people of this country when the disaster faced some of these West Indian Islands.
I think that several hon. Members had in mind the question of how could we do more to encourage trade. That was mentioned by the hon. Member for Blackpool, South and the hon. Member for Wembly, South (Mr. Russell) and my hon. Friend the Member for Somerset, North. We are, in fact, doing a great deal to assist trade in the West Indian islands. First and most important are the Commonwealth Sugar Agreement safeguards which safeguard the main crop and industry of the area as a whole. This is by and large the main industry of the West Indies. We have, as has also been pointed out, agreed detailed schemes with West Indian Governments to safeguard the banana and citrus industries, which are the two other main industries. Those are very substantial contributions to the sort of stability for which I think the hon. Member for Leek was asking.
I should like also to mention the fact, which I am sure will be noticed in the West Indies, that on both sides of the House there seems to be a universal desire that British Honduras and British Guiana should one day, in the not too-far-distant future, find themselves within this new Federation. Equally, I think both sides of the House showed responsibility in saying that it would be no good trying to push these territories in, until they were absolutely certain that it was the right course for them to pursue.
I feel very honoured at having had the privilege of moving the Second Reading of this Bill, and also of being allowed the last word in this debate. I was very glad that my hon. Friend the Member for


Blackpool, South took up the reference which I made to Oliver Stanley. I think that those people—some living and some not living—who, in their various spheres of life, whether politicians in this country, politicians from the West Indies, or civil servants who have helped to shape this idea which is now about to become practical, would have been proud to listen to what has been said in this debate today.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time.

Bill committed to a Committee of the whole House.—[Mr. Barber.]

Committee upon Monday next.

BRITISH CARIBBEAN FEDERATION [MONEY]

Considered in Committee under Standing Order No. 84 (Money Committees).—[Queen's Recommendation signified.]

[Sir RHYS HOPKIN MORRIS in the Chair]

Resolved,
That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to provide for the federation of certain West Indian colonies and for the transfer, to a court established for the purposes of the federation, of the jurisdiction of

the Court of Appeal established by the West Indian Court of Appeal Act, 1919, and the dissolution of that court; to provide for conferring on the first-mentioned court jurisdiction to hear and determine appeals from the courts of colonies which are not for the time being included in the federation and to repeal the British Honduras (Court of Appeal) Act, 1881; and for purposes connected with the matters aforesaid, it is expedient to authorise—

(1) the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament—

(a) of such sums, not exceeding in the aggregate one million pounds, as may be required by the Secretary of State for the purpose of making grants towards defraying the cost of establishing the seat of the Government of the federation established by virtue of the said Act; and
(b) of such sums as may be required by him for the purpose of making, in respect of the period of ten years beginning with the first day of January next after the establishment of the said federation, grants to that Government for the purpose of enabling it to make grants to the governments of colonies for the time being included in the federation whose resources are, in its opinion, insufficient to enable them to defray their administrative expenses; and

(2) the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament or out of the Consolidated Fund of any increase in sums payable there out under any other enactment which is attributable to an Order in Council made under or by virtue of the said Act.—[Mr. Hare.]

Resolution to be reported upon Monday next.

Orders of the Day — GOVERNORS' PENSIONS BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

2.50 p.m.

The Minister of State for Colonial Affairs (Mr. John Hare): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
I apologise to the House for taking up so much time today, but I should like to explain one or two things about this Bill, which is somewhat complicated. The main purpose of the Bill, as the Explanatory Memorandum says, is to provide a new method of calculating the amount of a Governor's pension. At present, a Governor's pension is calculated by reference to his length of service as a Governor, together with a unit of pension for every completed month of service—I will say a word or two about that later.
Under the proposed new method, a Governor who before his appointment was serving in the Oversea Civil Service will normally have his pension based on his final salary and on the combined length of his service in the Oversea Civil Service and as a Governor; a Governor not previously in the Oversea Civil Service will have his pension based on his final salary and his length of service as a Governor.
The number of people to be covered by the Bill is not very large. Only 49 Governors retired on pension in the last ten years, and four died while still serving. Apart from these, about a dozen Governors have retired without drawing pensions, the majority being formerly officers in the Armed Services who received pensions and gratuities in respect of that service. Hon. Members will have noticed that in paragraph 12 of the Financial and Explanatory Memorandum the Bill, if enacted, would increase the annual total of the pensions to be awarded to Governors now serving by £20,000.
While, therefore, neither the number of persons directly concerned by the Bill nor the amount of money at stake are large, hon. Members will, I am sure, agree that Governors as a class have deserved well of our country and that an improved pension system for them is overdue. I do not think it can any longer be said, if indeed it ever could, that

appointment as Governor is a reward for past labours and a pleasant prelude to retirement. I do not think there is any Governorship now which is not an arduous assignment, and, as we all know, some have proved to be very dangerous.
It is important to point out, too, that it is no longer possible for Governors to make substantial savings from their salaries to provide for their own retirement and for their dependants. Under the Act which we are working at the moment, the 1947 Act, the unit of pension which, as I said at the beginning of my speech, a Governor earns, varies according to the class of Governorship which he has held. There are four classes of Governorship. In a Class I Governorship, each month of service earns a pension of £7; in a Class II Governorship, £6; in a Class III Governorship, £5; and in a Class IV Governorship, £4. Very roughly, these four classes of Governorship reflect the size, population, etc., of the Territories concerned.
These awards bear no relation to the salary earned by the Governor; and this is in direct contrast to the position in both the Home Civil Service and the Oversea Civil Service, where pensions are based, as the House knows, on final salary or, in some cases, on the average salary over the last three years of service. As an illustration of the anomalies of the present system, there is one Governor who retired after 34 years of public service, which included two major Governorships, with a pension of £1,150 a year, which is only half the maximum pension permitted under the present Act.
Hon. Members I hope will understand that since under the present system Governors' pensions are not based on their final salary, it is possible for a Governor's pension for Civil Service and Governor's service combined to add up to less than he would have received had he remained in the Overseas Civil Service and retired from one of the senior posts in it. This is particularly so in the case of Governors who were appointed during the earlier years of the post-war period, when Civil Service salaries were beginning to show a marked upward tendency.
The Bill proposes to remedy these defects by providing that the pension of a Governor who was previously an Over-sea Civil Servant—and a large majority


of these Governors are in this category—should be based on his final salary and total period of public service. This, as I have indicated earlier, is the normal basis of Government superannuation awards.
The pension will be calculated at the rate of 1/600th of the average yearly salary of the three years before final retirement. This is then multiplied by the total number of months served. For example, a Governor who had 25 years total service would, on retiring, receive a pension of half the average salary of his last three years of service. This is the pension rate commonly employed in oversea Territories.
The oversea Governments concerned will, as at present, bear the costs of the pensions awarded under their own pension ordinances in respect of Oversea Civil Service, and Her Majesty's Government will pay the balance of the pension calculated on the basis which I have just indicated on total service and final salary.
A Governor who has had no previous Oversea Civil Service will earn a pension—provided he has had no less than ten years' total State service—at the rate of 1/600th of the average salary for each month he has served as Governor. A Governor who has previously been in the Home Civil Service will, in addition to this pension, draw his Home Civil Service pension. All this is provided for in Clause 2.
Clause 3 limits the maximum total pension which a Governor may receive to £3,000 or two-thirds of the highest salary earned, whichever is the less. I think I should explain that this figure of £3,000 has been adopted as being two-thirds of the salary of a Permanent Secretary in the Home Civil Service, and it will be noticed that provision is made for its alteration by Treasury Order. This would be done as and when salaries of Permanent Secretaries are revised in the United Kingdom. In fact, salaries of Permanent Secretaries have been revised with effect from 1st April, and after the passing of the Bill a Treasury Order will be laid which will have the effect of making an appropriate adjustment to the maximum pensions of Governors who retire after that date.

Lieut.-Colonel Marcus Lipton: It is £4,000.

Mr. Hare: It is £3,500. The amount specified in the Bill will apply to Governors who retired between 1st September, 1955, and 31st March, 1956.
Clause 5 empowers the Treasury to grant a gratuity to the personal representatives of a Governor who dies in office and who immediately before his appointment as Governor was serving in the home or overseas Civil Service. The amount of the gratuity is equal to the average salary of the last three years service—and this is where I think the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Brixton (Lieut.-Colonel Lipton) was a little muddled—subject to a limit of £4,500. This limit also may be varied by Treasury Order.
The other new major provision in the Bill is set out in Clause 4, by which a Governor may commute a maximum of a quarter of his pension for a capital sum. The calculation of the capital sum will be prescribed by Treasury Order. I think it is important to note that the right to commute will be independent of the Governor's state of health, and a medical examination will not be required.
The other Clauses are, I think, of less importance, and perhaps they could be left to the Committee stage, though I will say one word about Clause 12. This Clause applies the provisions of the Bill to pensions and gratuities after 31st August, 1955, but safeguards the rights of a Governor serving on 1st September, 1955, to the former provisions if these are more advantageous to him. This date was chosen as it marks a convenient gap between a number of Governors who retired before and those who have retired since.
I hope that this modest, but important and desirable Measure affecting a very deserving body of public servants will commend itself to the House.

3.0 p.m.

Mr. Arthur Creech Jones: I shall not detain the House for more than a few minutes. We on this side of the House all welcome that the whole problem of Governors' pensions is to be brought under review by this Bill. I imagine it is all part of the general process going on of looking at the conditions of the Colonial Service and considering whether we can provide for the Colonial Service much better arrangements than have been made hitherto. We have


studied quite recently the problem of recruitment, and I take it we have now been obliged to come to the far end of the service and look at the position of those who have achieved supreme rank in the Service.
I should like first of all to ask what was the origin of the Bill. I myself was responsible, in 1947, for certain changes in the pensions of the Service, and also Governors' pensions, trying to secure a little more generous treatment and trying to make it possible, if we could, for Governors, if they so wished, to retire at an earlier age.
This is a very complicated Measure, somewhat difficult for the ordinary lay person to understand. Perhaps I may be permitted to make this aside, that I am sure that some of my own hon. Friends feel that we should like the same solicitude to be shown towards Members of Parliament in regard to the provision which is made for them. I would hope also that, as a result of this discussion this afternoon, the Colonial Office will look at its own internal problems and see whether it cannot make provision for some of its own civil servants or those who, because they are on temporary lists, will find themselves completely unprovided for when they retire. I want to bring to the attention of the Minister of State the fact that some of our own people here in London, in the Colonial Office on temporary lists, are retiring after many years of service without any pension at all.
What is curious is the method by which this basis of 1/600th is arrived at. What is the principle underlying the Bill? I would say also that it is desirable to wipe out the various grades of Governors in the calculation of pensions.

Mr. Hare: I am sorry if I did not make that clear. They will be wiped out, under the provisions of the Bill.

Mr. Creech Jones: Yes; I welcome that change. It has always, to my mind been one of the mysteries in respect of the appointment of Governors that there should be this astonishing grading; one would have thought that the Colonial Office and the Secretary of State should enjoy complete freedom in allocating Governors where they were most required. Therefore, in so far as in the

calculation of pensions the grading is now abolished, that is all to the good.
The Bill has another valuable aspect, which was not mentioned, namely that persons on short appointments may now be considered for Governorships, people who would normally draw no pension because of the very short period for which their appointment was made. If, therefore, the Bill succeeds in giving the Secretary of State greater freedom of choice in appointments, so that men with wide public service and experience may be considered for some of the appointments, the Bill is all to the good.
If pensions are improved, it will be made possible for the Secretary of State to deal more readily with those Governors who have perhaps lost their zest and who possibly should retire so that more energetic and enlightened men may be brought in to do the work.
There is one query on which I should like enlightenment. During his speech, the Minister referred to retrospective service. I should like to know whether the Bill will apply only to existing Governors or whether the benefits of the Bill can be given to those now in retirement. The right hon. Gentleman gave the number of Governors who are in retirement and I should have thought that from the point of view of good feeling amongst them, there was some claim that they might receive at least equal treatment. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman can tell us whether it is intended to apply the Bill to Governors who have already concluded their appointments. I should like to know also the age to which the Secretary of State is working in regard to appointments. Is retirement now compulsory or optional, and at what age? These are my only two queries.
The Bill, complicated as it is, is desirable. It will give the Secretary of State greater freedom of action, and I think also that it will treat more fairly and justly Governors whose service often is of tremendous importance to the Commonwealth and which has been given very freely and often with consummate skill.

3.7 p.m.

Sir David Gammans: This is a very useful Bill, but to my mind it has one defect. It is the sort of Bill which could usefully have been laid


before the House about 20 years ago. Since then, however, conditions have changed, and the defect in the Bill which I should like to have seen remedied is that the pensions—and, for that matter, the pay—of all Governors should be a charge, not on the local Government, but on the home Government. This would be perhaps the most desirable contribution that this country could make in the developing state of the Commonwealth today.
If a Governor's pension—I can refer only to pensions, but the same argument applies equally to pay—is dependent upon a country which has just adopted a democratic constitution and has achieved self-government, he is placed in an invidious position in relation to those over whom he exercises rule. One of the desirable trends of the last few years is the claim by developing countries to get rid of the expatriates. That is a horrible word. It simply means a fellow British subject from these islands, who has given the best years of his life and has helped to develop a country to the point of self-government and is then called an expatriate. All that arises from a feeling of nationalism and a desire to get rid of him, perhaps merely because he draws higher allowances and was not born in the country.
When dealing with the Governor and his pension, it would have been an imaginative gesture on the part of the Government to have said that they would take the Governor's salary out of the sphere of the local Government and bring it home and make it a colonial development and welfare fund responsibility.
That is desirable for another reason also. I believe that as countries reach the stage of full or semi-self-government, we shall need a different type of Governor. The idea of a man working his way up through the service to become a Governor will tend to disappear and men with political background behind them and knowledge of political experience will be selected as Governors of important Colonies rather than men who have come up through the service. Although this is an admirable Bill as far as it goes, I wish that my right hon. Friend had been able to persuade his colleagues to go one stage further and make a thorough job of it.

3.10 p.m.

Mr. Norman Pannell: I am very happy to support the Bill as it not only removes many anomalies but tends to put overseas Governors in the same relative pension position as the higher executives of the Civil Service. In view of the many benefits that the Bill confers it would, perhaps, be churlish of me to emphasise the very few defects it contains, but I would draw one of those defects to the attention of my right hon. Friend.
I refer to the political governorship appointments, which, I think, will become increasingly frequent in future as Colonies move towards self-government. Those men are not drawn from either the home Civil Service or the Oversea Civil Service but are men of broad political experience who are considered best able to discharge the functions of Her Majesty's representatives in the changing circumstances. Those Governors are not properly provided for by the Bill. They have to serve for ten years before they qualify for any pension. They have no former service in the home Civil Service or the Oversea Civil Service which would increase their pensions. Many of these men are appointed late in middle life, and they are called upon to undergo the strains and stresses of colonial conditions in countries mostly situated in the tropical or sub-tropical regions.
It is quite conceivable that such a Governor would not be able to endure the whole ten years, and might retire because of ill-health. If he were to do so, having discharged his highly important functions for, perhaps, eight years, he would be left without any provision being made for him by the Bill. Neither, so far as I can see, is he provided for under Clause 5, should he die in office within the ten years. I would draw my right hon. Friend's attention to that, and ask him whether it is possible, in the Committee stage, to introduce some provision for those Governors, if they serve for less than ten years and have to retire through no fault of their own.
Although a number of Governors are of that political type, I think it is true to say that the great majority of the Governors serving at present in our Colonial Territories are drawn from the colonial Civil Service, and are men who have graduated from the humble rank of cadets through the various grades to


the exalted rank of Her Majesty's representative. It is probably the ambition of every cadet in the colonial service to rise to the position of Governor, but, of course, in the very nature of things, few of them achieve that ambition, and most of them finish their careers in humbler spheres. At the same time, we must admit that those overseas civil servants still form the cadre from whom Governors are drawn, and it is important, in my view, that they should not suffer under any sense of grievance.
Under the Bill, the Government accept direct responsibility for the pensions of Governors on a reasonably generous scale, but they deny responsibility altogether for the pension of those who do not attain the rank of Governor and who are in service of Colonies which have achieved internal self-government. They deny responsibility entirely for those officers and throw that responsibility on to the colonial Governments themselves.
The Colonies deal with this matter in different ways. There are wide disparities in their treatment of it. I refer to those Colonies with which I am particularly familiar, the Colonies of West Africa. In those Colonies—the Gambia, Sierra Leone, the Gold Coast, Nigeria—provisions for increased pensions have been introduced following an increase in the cost of living, but the model is different in each case. Whereas Nigeria has, by virtue of recent legislation, no ceiling, the Gambia, Sierra Leone and the Gold Coast have a ceiling of £600 for an unmarried man and of £900 per annum for a married man with dependants.
Furthermore, the Gambia applies a means test, so that any person who is in receipt of an income of £900 or more from all sources does not qualify for the increase of pension. There are similar disparities with regard to widows' and orphans' pension schemes in those Colonies, although all those who benefit from them have subscribed equally to the funds. In Nigeria and Sierra Leone there is a ceiling on widows' and orphans' pensions of £350 to £450, according to the number of dependants, yet no such limitation exists in the Gold Coast and Gambia.
I ask the Minister of State for Colonial Affairs to consider this point very seriously. It is essential that we should give reasonable treatment not only to

Governors but also to those who aspire to be Governors, and who form the cadre from which Governors are chosen. If the Government cannot accept direct responsibility for the pensions of these servants who do not reach the rank of governor, I ask my right hon. Friend to use his utmost influence to induce the Colonies in question to introduce a uniform and generous scheme for them and for their widows and orphans.

3.17 p.m.

Mr. E. G. Willis: I agree with all that has been said about Governors deserving well of the House, and I agree with the remarks made on the nature of their work and its importance. I also agree that there is a good case for wiping out injustices and anomalies, but I cannot help wondering whether it is really necessary at this juncture to increase the maximum pension from £2,300 to £3,000. That is a very substantial sum of money.
I have often been struck by the ease with which certain groups of persons can have their pensions increased by hundreds of pounds with very little debate and with the unanimous approval of the House, whilst when we come to discuss pensions for ordinary folk we have to carry on a very bitter battle for many years to get as many extra shillings for them. The dependants of a man who has lost his life fighting in war also deserve well of us, for he also has done an important job for the country, but to secure a few extra shillings for his widow or for a disabled man is very difficult. There is something wrong with our sense of values when, on one hand, we can talk so easily in terms of hundreds of pounds whilst in the other case we find it difficult to talk in terms of shillings.
I should have thought that at present, when everyone is being told that we must not ask for any more, it is inappropriate to increase the maximum pension from £2,300 to £3,000. Surely this could have waited for a little while. The Chancellor of the Exchequer is going round frantically trying to have pounds, and to do so at the expense of school children and all sorts of other people, yet the Government bring forward a Bill to make this increase in Governors' pensions. I should have thought that £2,300 was fairly generous and should have enabled


a man to enjoy quite a decent standard of living during his retirement.
We should be told more about why at this moment, above all others, when we hear so much about the difficulties facing the country, it is necessary to increase this pension by £700, which in itself is a substantial sum. I hope that the Minister of State for Colonial Affairs will be able to say something about that when he replies to the debate.

3.20 p.m.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: I have no objection to the principle of the Bill, but it is unfortunate that it should be presented to the House at the end of a week during which the Chancellor of the Exchequer has brought forward a series of proposals for economies. Earlier in the week, the Chancellor announced considerable economies which are supposed to amount to £100 million a year, and one can hardly read a newspaper these days without seeing appeals for economy and for reducing Government expenditure.
Why, then, is there any need for haste in this matter? I suggest that this Measure should be delayed for at least 12 months, until we are sure that the plateau of stability has become permanent. I fail to see the consistency of the Chancellor of the Exchequer and of the Prime Minister going to the wage earners and to the big trade unions and saying that we must stabilise prices and must not encourage demands for higher incomes, if this House sets the example of introducing, even though only in a very small way, increases in emoluments which are not among the most urgent.
For example, if we were to propose an increase in old-age pensions——

Mr. Graham Page: Or Members' pay.

Mr. Hughes: Yes, or Members' pay; I was coming to that, but I am starting with the old-age pensions. If we were to say that the old-age pensioners——

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member may be starting with the old-age pensioners, but the Bill starts with Governors' pensions, and we cannot go too far astray from that even on Second Reading.

Mr. Hughes: I was only suggesting that this proposal for increasing the pensions of people who receive comparatively good emoluments and pensions should be postponed until we have some indication that the policy of the Government has changed. The question of economy at this time is important, as I am sure the Lord Privy Seal would agree——

The Lord Privy Seal (Mr. R. A. Butler): indicated assent.

Mr. Hughes: The right hon. Gentleman nods his head in acquiescence, but he can hardly be aware of the Bill before the House. I am suggesting that the Government are not setting a good example in restraint to the old-age pensioners and the other unmentionables by coming forward, even at this late hour on a Friday afternoon when they thought all the vigilant Scottish Members had gone home, with a Bill which, to say the least of it, does not sound the high note of economy which we are accustomed to read about in the newspapers. It also makes it exceedingly difficult for us to understand the consistency of the Prime Minister, because in a recent controversy with the Leader of the Opposition the right hon. Gentleman said, "Yes, this is perfectly just, this is perfectly reasonable, but this is not the time." All I am suggesting, Mr. Speaker, is that this is not the time to set an example in increasing Government expenditure.
After all, it is these small increases which add up to the big increases and justify increased wage demands. Certainly when lower paid people in the Civil Service see this, they will ask, "Where do we come in?" I can imagine that this debate will be read by all kinds of people who in these days are looking for the slightest justification for increasing their salaries. I do not know what the Parliamentary Secretaries are going to say when they learn that the Government, who have been so niggardly towards them, are ready to meet the Colonial Governors.
I understand that if I go into the question of Members' pay, I shall be out of order, and I do not wish to raise a question involving such acute controversy during the late part of the week, but I suggest that there is a very reasonable case for the withdrawal of this Bill for at least 12 months.

3.26 p.m.

Lieut.-Colonel Marcus Lipton: I do not want it to be thought that doubts about this Bill are felt only by two hon. Members from north of the Border. There is at least one Member representing a constituency south of the Border who, to a considerable extent, shares the views that have been expressed by my two hon. Friends the Members for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes) and Edinburgh, East (Mr. Willis).
It seems odd that the Government, in assessing the order of priorities, should, no doubt, after very careful consideration, have come to the conclusion that the situation with regard to Governors is now so urgent and pressing that the matter must be dealt with here and now. Reference has been made, and very properly made, to the appeals that have been addressed to the House and to the country by the Prime Minister and others asking for restraint. By reason of those appeals many requests for sympathetic consideration on behalf of various categories of people—I will not specify those categories—have had to be turned down, or at least postponed, for some indefinite period. Nevertheless, we are now asked on a Friday afternoon, when I believe the Government thought that this matter would slip through more or less on the nod, to agree to this increase.
I am not opposed—neither, indeed, are my hon. Friends—to pensions. We want better pensions for everybody at the earliest possible moment. There is no reason why, in the framework of that general attitude, Colonial Governors should be prejudiced. All that we suggest is that it strikes some of us as rather curious that at this moment, when all kinds of justifiable claims for consideration have got to be turned down, the Governors' Pensions Bill comes before the House.
The Minister of State for Colonial Affairs said that this is a complicated Measure, and I must confess that I was not able to follow him in all the figures and calculations that he gave us. He said that the yearly maximum is to be increased from £2,300 to £3,000, subject to a limit of two-thirds of the final salary. But this question of two-thirds of the final salary is, if I understand him aright, conditioned by the salaries paid in the whole Civil Service. In those circumstances, if the highest rate of salary in

the whole Civil Service goes up to £6,000, as has been proposed in the last few days, then two-thirds of that will be £4,000.

Mr. N. Pannell: Why not?

Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: I understood the Minister of State to say that the maximum of £3,000, for which the Bill provides, may, on the application of the two-thirds limit to take account of the rise in Civil Service salaries in this country, be increased to £4,000. It will be noticed that the maximum can be varied by Treasury Order and that it is not necessary to bring in another Bill.
The hon. Member for Kirkdale (Mr. N. Pannell) intervened to ask why I did not object to the pensions being increased. If it is thought necessary, and if the times are propitious, I do not object to the pension being increased from £3,000 to £4,000, but the House is entitled to know whether my interpretation is correct Perhaps the Minister of State did not correctly understand the interruption which I tried to make during his speech. I was merely trying to indicate that it may well be that under Clause 3 a maximum of £3,000 a year pension may be increased by a Treasury Order up to £4,000 in the light of the £6,000 a year which is soon to be paid to the Permanent Under-Secretary in one of the major Departments.
This is an inappropriate time to introduce the Bill. As my hon. Friends have pointed out, we are not objecting to better provisions being made for Colonial Governors, but we are entitled to say that the order of priorities which the Government seem to have established for themselves will not be very easily understood by old-age pensioners, disabled ex-Service men particularly disabled ex-Service men of the 1914–18 War, limbless men and a number of other deserving categories which it is hardly necessary for me to mention in detail.

3.33 p.m.

Mr. Hare: By leave of the House; I did not quite understand the intervention of the hon. and gallant Member for Brixton (Lieut.-Colonel Lipton), and I am sorry if I was discourteous. He is quite right in saying that the basis of this provision can be altered by Treasury Order. I am glad that in principle the hon. and gallant Member and his hon. Friends the


Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Willis) and the hon. Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes) do not oppose the Bill in its objects and confined their remarks to asking why we should not have bigger and better pensions elsewhere.
Possibly they do not understand that the Bill is to try to reform a system which is long out of date, and which merely puts these public servants on the same basis as the Oversea Civil Service. It is not a Measure which will cost large sums of money. In fact, it will cost £20,000 a year, as I indicated in my speech. Perhaps the opportunity has been taken to build up this matter rather more than it deserves.
The right hon. Member for Wakefield (Mr. Creech Jones) asked me one or two specific questions. He asked why 1/600th is the measurement taken. I understand that that follows general colonial precedent and, therefore, permits the new Governors' pension system to be combined with the present overseas Civil Service system. He also asks what the origin of the Bill was. It was begun to be thought about at least a year ago, when it was found that there was a great disparity between what was happening in the Oversea Civil Service and what was happening with Governors' pensions.
I think that he also wanted to know whether Governors can be retired at an earlier age under the Bill.

Mr. Creech Jones: I was referring to those who had retired.

Mr. Hare: I am afraid that we cannot make the Bill retrospective.
My hon. Friend the Member for Hornsey (Sir D. Gammans) regretted that we had not made provision to pay governors from United Kingdom sources. I note what he says, but I am afraid that it does not come within the scope of the Bill. My hon. Friend the Member for Kirkdale (Mr. N. Pannell) made an eloquent plea, requesting my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to consider the pensions of others serving in the Colonial Service, and that plea was reinforced by the right hon. Member for Wakefield. I can assure both my hon. Friend and the right hon. Member that everything that they have said will be considered carefully by the Colonial

Office. Meanwhile, I should like to say that I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for saying that his party gives support to the Bill. I hope, therefore, that it will be given a Second Reading.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time.

Bill committed to a Committee of the whole House.—[Mr. R. Thompson.]

Committee upon Monday next.

Orders of the Day — GOVERNORS' PENSIONS [MONEY]

Considered in Committee under Standing Order No. 84 (Money Committees).—[Queen's Recommendation signified.]

[Sir RHYS HOPKIN MORRIS in the Chair]

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to amend the Pensions (Governors of Dominions, &amp;c.) Acts, 1911 to 1947, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of any increase attributable to the provisions of the said Act in the sums which under the Pensions (Governors of Dominions, &amp;c.) Acts, 1911 to 1947, or under the Superannuation Acts, 1834 to 1950, are payable out of moneys so provided.—[Mr. Hare.]

3.37 p.m.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: I do not think that sufficient reason has been given for the acceptance of this Financial Resolution. As the Minister of State for Colonial Affairs has told us, only a small amount of money is concerned here—apparently about £20,000 a year—but I am afraid that the argument that it will cost a small sum will be seized upon by other people in order to press their claims——

The Deputy-Chairman: The hon. Member cannot go beyond what is provided in the Resolution.

Mr. Hughes: I was merely pointing out that although only a small sum is involved here, the implications are not so insignificant as the Minister has argued, and in Committee we shall try to alter the Bill in order to meet that situation.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolution to be reported upon Monday next.

Orders of the Day — JUDICIAL COMMITTEE OF THE PRIVY COUNCIL

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. R. Thompson.]

3.39 p.m.

Mr. Graham Page: I desire to draw attention to the composition of the boards for the appeals which come to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. I count myself particularly fortunate in having the privilege to raise this matter, because I consider it to be of considerable importance in the development of the Commonwealth, and because this is a particularly propitious time to raise the subject, when the Conference of Commonwealth Prime Ministers is being held. It is also a matter connected with that which the House has been discussing earlier today, namely, the birth of another Commonwealth nation—the Caribbean Federation.
The Judicial Committee of the Privy Council is still a very important pillar of the Constitution. I would desire not only to maintain but to strengthen that pillar and to adapt it to modern circumstances. I should like to make it clear right away that in the points I wish to make I do not wish to make any criticism whatever of the noble Lords and judges who sit as members of the boards of the Judicial Committee. If I may humbly and respectfully say so, we have in these boards the finest legal brains and judicial wisdom not only in the Commonwealth, but in the world. I speak with some experience of having listened for many hours in the Privy Council because—and here I must declare an interest—I am one who is privileged to be entered on the Roll of Privy Council Appeal Agents and who practises as a solicitor in that court.
My complaint is in no way against the magnificent judicial quality of the Committee. It is solely directed to the fact that the hearing of appeals is by members of the judicial Committee entirely drawn from those who hold, or have held, high judicial office in the United Kingdom. I believe that that fact, however brilliant those judges may be, creates a feeling in the Commonwealth and in the Colonies that they are rather remote old gentlemen sitting in Whitehall, and not

that the Judicial Committee is the supreme court of appeal of the Commonwealth, as I should hope they would feel. I believe that there is a feeling in the Colonies and the Commonwealth that this is an imperial court imposed on them by the United Kingdom.
Historically, there is great foundation for that view, and that is all the more reason why we should take care to ensure that this judicial body is subject to a similar evolution in form as that which is taking place in the economic, political and social structure of the Commonwealth.
The Judicial Committee as a judicial body is unique. It exercises the jurisdiction of the Sovereign in Council, which arose partly out of the Common Law and partly out of the Royal Prerogative. In theory, the Council—and before 1833 the whole Council—acts in an advisory capacity to Her Majesty as the fountain head of justice throughout Her Dominions and Colonies. In 1883 the Judicial Committee was created to perform that function and to hear appeals from the Dominions and Colonies and to advise the Sovereign thereon. Indeed, their judgment is still given as advice to Her Majesty.
Since its creation in 1833, the composition and jurisdiction of the Judicial Committee has been changed from time to time. Its jurisdiction in appeals is from the Colonies, the Protectorates, from the Dominion and State Courts of Australia, from New Zealand, Ceylon and the Central African Federation. The members of the Judicial Committee are, first, all Privy Councillors who have held or hold high judicial office in this country; secondly, two other Privy Councillors whom the Sovereign may appoint; and, thirdly, all Privy Councillors who are, or have been, Chief Justices or judges of the superior courts of the Dominion or provinces of Canada, of the Dominion or states of Australia, or New Zealand or of the Union of South Africa.
All those whom I have mentioned are automatically members of the Judicial Committee. So far as the Dominion judges are concerned, all that is necessary is that they should be appointed Privy Councillors. There are quite a large number so qualified and so appointed. But I cannot recollect any


occasion on which any Dominion or colonial judge who is a Privy Councillor has sat to hear an appeal, that is to say, has been nominated a member of the board to hear appeals, with the exception of the Right Hon. Mr. de Silva, an ex-judge of Ceylon, who is a frequent and most respected member of the boards hearing appeals.
In addition to those I have mentioned as members of the Judicial Committee, the Act of 1895 included as members any chief justice or judge of any other superior court of Her Majesty's Dominions trained in that behalf by Her Majesty in Council. As far as I am aware, no such Order in Council has ever been made, and I wish to press that point on my right hon. and learned Friend a little later. One would imagine from that membership that there would be plenty of scope for making this a truly Commonwealth court, and indeed the Administration of Justice Act, 1928, abolished any limitation on numbers of the Judicial Committee. But, in practice, every board, the three or five judges who sit to hear any one appeal, is composed of United Kingdom judges, with the one solitary exception I have mentioned of the Right Hon. Mr. de Silva.
Why, when the Registrar of the Privy Council asks the Lord Chancellor's Department to nominate the board for any particular appeal, is a Commonwealth or colonial judge never nominated? Is there some difficulty about paying for their services? For example, am I correct in assuming that the one exception which I have mentioned receives no payment for his valuable and tireless work on these boards?
When boards are so constituted, it is little wonder that India, South Africa, Canada and Pakistan have broken away from this appellate jurisdiction of the Privy Council. However brilliant our judges may be, one can understand the injury to political prestige which such nations would feel they suffer in continuing to submit to an entirely United Kingdom court.
The breakaway has, I am sure, been purely political. I think it is a trend which is regretted by the judiciary, by the legal professions and by the litigants, especially the merchant litigants, in the Commonwealth countries. It is a trend which need not continue if the Colonies

now gaining their independence were made to feel that the Judicial Committee is really their court and contains their highest judges as members of it. Today we have been discussing the creating of a new Commonwealth nation, in the proposed constitution of which the appellate jurisdiction of the Privy Council is to be retained. But for how long will it be retained if the boards continue to contain not the judges of the Commonwealth but only the judges of the United Kingdom? I believe that, if we do that, the trend to abandon this judicial link will continue.
One particularly outstanding exception to that trend has indirectly received the approval of the House today. It is that proposed for the Caribbean itself. There has always been a difficulty, in forming a new constitution, about the possible political influence upon the judges. We have always, in forming constitutions, endeavoured to make the judges independent both of political appointment and of political tenure of office.
In the new constitution for the Caribbean a solution has been found for that, novel, interesting and rather gratifying. It is that a judge should be removed from office only by the Governor-General on receipt of a report from the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council recommending that the judge should be removed from office. That seems to show a great confidence in the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council among those in the West Indies who are forming this new Commonwealth nation.
There is one other outstanding exception to the general trend of breakaway from the Judicial Committee. That is in the constitutional proposals recently put forward by the Gold Coast Government. The Gold Coast, very determined in reaching its independence, has yet said in these constitutional proposals that it will retain the appellate jurisdiction of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. There again, there is gratifying confidence in the great wisdom and learned judgment of the Judicial Committee. Do let us respond to these declarations of confidence.
There are judges in West Africa and in the West Indies who would uphold the greatest traditions of legal wisdom and experience if they were appointed to and


utilised by the Judicial Committee. Therefore, I would ask my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General whether he could ensure three things. First, that Dominion and colonial judges who are at present members of the Judicial Committee should be included on the boards hearing appeals. Secondly, that more such Dominion and colonial judges should be appointed Privy Councillors, so that they could automatically become members of the Judicial Committee. Thirdly, that by Order in Council other Colonies should be designated under the Act of 1895 as Colonies from which judges can be appointed to membership of the Judicial Committee. In that connection, I would particularly mention West Africa, both the Gold Coast and Nigeria, the Caribbean and Malaya. These areas are on the way to independence and I believe that they would wish to retain this link in judicial matters if we made it politically possible for them to do so. But it is not politically possible while the boards of the Judicial Committee remain as at present constituted.
I am asking for a definite change in Government policy—a change from a passive policy to a positive policy. Up to the present, the policy has been passive and, to paraphrase W. S. Gilbert, we have said to the Colonies, "Here is a court and a good court too. It is at your service if you want to continue to use it." I should like to see that take-it-or-leave-it attitude replaced by a positive policy of making the Judicial Committee a truly Commonwealth court on which United Kingdom, Commonwealth and colonial judges sit together.
I would remind my right hon. and learned Friend that that is exactly what the party to which he and I belong have again and again said it would do, in its manifestos. This moment, when the Conference of Commonwealth Prime Ministers is meeting, is an admirable moment for my right hon. and learned Friend to make a positive pronouncement of the establishment of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council as a truly Commonwealth appeal court.

3.56 p.m.

Mr. Hector Hughes: I do not want to take time from the Attorney-General or any other Minister who is to reply to the admirable speech

of the hon. Member for Crosby (Mr. Page). I am sure the House will take the view that the hon. Member has done great public service in drawing attention to certain curious anomalies in the relevant law.
It is an odd thing that while the Empire, on the one hand, and the British Commonwealth of Nations, on the other hand, have developed in such a beneficial way, not only along juridical lines but also along political lines, for the peace of the world, the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council has not kept pace with the changes which have occurred. I think it is right and appropriate that an hon. Member should draw attention to the fact that the development of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council has not kept pace, and it is appropriate that this matter should be raised at the present time, when the Prime Ministers of various realms in the Commonwealth of Nations are in this country.
Not only this country but other civilised nations, have from time to time, through their jurists, expressed admiration of our system of law, its principles, its procedures and its practice. In particular they have drawn attention to the work of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. For that work the Judicial Committee has from time to time been the subject of expressions of appreciation by some of the greatest jurists in the world—and rightly so, because the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council is one of the greatest judicial courts in the world.
The hon. Member for Crosby drew attention to the fact, and indeed his argument gained point from the fact, that quite a number of newer members of the Commonwealth of Nations do not use the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. They have withdrawn from its jurisdiction. It is certainly a pity that they do not use it, because the Committee, as the hon. Member suggested, could be enriched by jurists from all the other elements in the Commonwealth. The hon. Member indicated that the reason why they did not use the Committee was political. That is a pity, too, because it tends to impair the validity, the authority and the grandeur of that great court. The hon. Member said the reasons were political rather than juridical. If the objections to the court were juridical, they


might be much more valid than the political objections which have impaired its scope within the Commonwealth.
The Queen is, of course, the fountain of all justice through the Commonwealth, and the Privy Council acts in an advisory capacity to the Crown. Throughout the ages it has done this with rare distinction and authority. Constitutional developments during the last few generations have altered the history of the Commonwealth. Those great alterations, while they have enhanced the strength, scope, size and population of the Commonwealth as a world power, and have increased the number of what are now called realms rather than Dominions, have not enhanced the prestige and the authority of the Privy Council. That is a pity.
We witness today the good anomaly of Republics within a Commonwealth presided over by a Sovereign. The elasticity of the Commonwealth is one of its great features.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Sir Rhys Hopkin Morris): Order, order.

It being Four o'clock, the Motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. R. Thompson.]

Mr. Hughes: I am greatly relieved to find that your "Order, order", Mr. Deputy-Speaker, was not directed to any disorder of mine, and that I am not out of order in anything I am saying.
While these alterations in the history of the Commonwealth have taken place, they have not, unfortunately, taken place pari passu in the procedure and practice of the Privy Council. The argument of the hon. Member for Crosby (Mr. Page) seems to me to be quite sound. It would be a great advantage to the Judicial Committee if some means could be found whereby more juridical figures, whether distinguished members of the Bar or distinguished judges in the various realms of the Commonwealth, could be invited to take their place upon the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council.
I hope that it will not be out of order if I add that it would, in my view, be a great advantage to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council if it it were to travel from one realm to another. I

do not know whether the hon. Member for Crosby did refer to that. We want to enrich the Judicial Committee, not only in its personnel, but by extending its appeal to the peoples of the realms which compose the Commonwealth. In my submission, that could be done, or, at least, assisted, if the Judicial Committee were to have amongst its membership distinguished jurists of the type I have mentioned, drawn from the various realms of the Commonwealth; and, secondly, were distinguished Board to sit, not only in London, at at present, but to sit from time to time, on appropriate occasions, in the capitals of the realms constituting the Commonwealth of Nations.
I did not intend to speak in this debate, but I was so attracted by the service which the hon. Member for Crosby was rendering to juridical thought in the Commonwealth that I felt that I should like to add the few observations which I have made.

4.2 p.m.

The Attorney-General (Sir Reginald Manningham-Buller): I must extend my sympathy to the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hector Hughes), for surely it must be the first time on which he has had a speech interrupted from the Chair by a call for "Order" when, in fact, he was not out of order; I can well understand the shock he suffered in finding that it was not on that account that his speech was interrupted.
We have had agreement on both sides of the House that this is a most propitious and appropriate time to raise this subject. Of course, I entirely agree, since we have with us at present so many Prime Ministers of the other members of the Commonwealth.
My hon. Friend the Member for Crosby (Mr. Page) and the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Aberdeen, North have both paid high tribute to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. My hon. Friend said, and said with absolute accuracy, that it contained the finest legal brains of our land, and I think the hon. and learned Member for Aberdeen, North made observations to a similar effect.
It is true to say that it is a tribunal which enjoys, and deservedly enjoys, a


world-wide reputation as a tribunal of the very highest standing. I am sure that my hon. Friend and the hon. and learned Gentleman opposite would agree that that reputation and high standing in turn depend, and have depended, on the eminence and ability of those who have sat and are sitting on the Judicial Committee. I am sure that hon. Members would agree that one of the signal features of that Committee is the eminence and ability of those who have sat upon it. I do not suggest that it would happen if my hon. Friend's suggestion was adopted in its entirety, but I throw out the thought that it would be a sad thing if the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council did not continue to be recruited from the best legal brains of this country and of the Commonwealth.
My hon. Friend said one thing which was not entirely accurate. He said that those who heard appeals were drawn entirely from those who have held, and hold, high judicial office in the United Kingdom. He qualified that later when he referred to Mr. de Silva, a distinguished former judge from Ceylon, but, as I shall indicate, what my hon. Friend said was not entirely accurate, even with that qualification.
It is true that the majority of serving members on the Committee are from the United Kingdom but, as my hon. Friend said, Mr. de Silva, a distinguished former judge from Ceylon, whose presence we value so much, is a regular member of the Judicial Committee. His appointment was by virtue of an Order in Council under the Act of 1895, to which my hon. Friend referred; so that that Act is still in use. We also get the benefit of periodic visits from distinguished judges from the Commonwealth. It was my hon. Friend's omission to refer to this which made what he said not entirely accurate.
I will give one example. Mr. Rinfret, Chief Justice of Canada, sat in some cases towards the end of 1954. I agree with

my hon. Friend that we gain immeasurable benefit by the assistance of such visitors and I can also say that their presence is always welcome here. My hon. Friend must, however, realise that there are practical difficulties in securing the attendance at meetings of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council of these distinguished gentlemen, who have their own duties to perform.
These gentlemen have their own work to do in their own countries, and very important work it is too. Secondly, it must be borne in mind that the Judicial Committee is itself very much of a working body. It sits on most days of the week throughout each legal term, and it has, as my hon. Friend will confirm, quite a long list of important cases to determine.
In those circumstances, it is difficult to change the composition of the court continually. It is difficult to arrange for the continuity of the work to fit in with a continually changing court. As I have already said, however, overseas members of the Judicial Committee are always welcome, and if it were possible for a chief justice of a member State of the Commonwealth to come and sit for a month or two months at a time, his presence would be very welcome indeed.
I have pointed out one or two difficulties which lie in the way of acceding to the suggestions put forward by my hon. Friend. We welcome the fact that he has raised this question, and we are in full agreement with him on the importance of the Judicial Committee as a most valuable link in the Commonwealth. I can assure him that we shall carefully consider the valuable suggestions which he has put forward, even if it is not possible now to announce, for the reasons I have given, immediate acceptance of all his ideas.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at ten minutes past Four o'clock.